From the Diocese of Toronto
The bishops of the Diocese of Toronto are proposing to respond pastorally in the matter of committed same-sex relationships.
In making their proposal, the bishops made it clear they are attempting to work within the national House of Bishops’ 2007 statement on sexuality. In that document, the Canadian bishops said they are committed to “develop the most generous pastoral response possible within the current teaching of the church.”
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.
In other words, they would still rather avoid the issue than face it.
“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.”
Sounds like a safe-injection drug site to me. You can shoot up if you want. We won’t make it legal but we’ll help you do it just to keep things tidy.
They obviously figured that a motion would be coming to their May synod, so better to head it off at the pass. A “blessing (but not the nuptial blessing)” looks like what, precisely?
What gives with the pro SSB bishops of ACoC? They are living in dream world and don’t seem to realize that their actions are poisoning their church and it’s dying a slow miserable death. Do they think by accepting SSB they will “grow” their church?
Slightly edited – admin
Gawk (#4), I think the part of your comment that was edited hit the nail on the head.
now if i could remember exactly what i said ! Part of getting past thirty. LOL.
The more of these wish washy decisions I become aware of the more I count my blessings to be free from the ACOC . I wonder if this it what it feels like to be let out of prison after a lengthy sentence.
Also read the bishop’s comments which follow (but were cut off in the quotation). Apparently the “inbaba” process will be coming to Toronto’s Synod. Encouraging, however, is the bishop’s comment, “We are committed to remaining in alignment with the decisions and recommendations of General Synod and Lambeth.” One would hope that this includes the Windsor Report.
Quote “the Canadian bishops said they are committed to “develop the most generous pastoral response possible within the current teaching of the church.”
This is like asking the question “How long is a piece of string?” The “current” teachings of the church are the problem. Like an elastic band they are elastic; always moving, always stretching, eventually breaking. And where are our so-called “orthodox” bishops? Sitting on their hands watching their pensions accrue. Disgusting!!!
I agree with Winter Traveler on the travesty unfolding in the Diocese of Toronto, but it should come as no surprise, surely. This, however, is equally troublesome:
“And where are our so-called “orthodox” bishops? Sitting on their hands watching their pensions accrue. Disgusting!!!”
Do you know the hearts and minds of the orthodox bishops remaining in the ACC?
Their behaviour is curious, yes, but there is a deeper problem at work in the midst of the ‘orthodox’ bishops. I put that in scare quotes as even the conservatives can’t agree on what this word means, as is evidenced in ANiC’s approval of the usage of the BAS at their first Synod. For an organization so concerned with the wishy-washiness of the ACC, this is a very curious move indeed.
Be careful in dealing out judgment when it comes to those remaining in the ACC, particularly our ‘faithful’ bishops, who are now growing in number. I do not think the sun has set on the ACC, just yet.
Consider this a rebuke, Winter Traveler.
I don’t much like the BAS either – but, I must point out that the rubrics of the BAS were not approved, only the liturgies. These liturgies can be used in a way that isn’t biblical, but I think we can trust the ANiC clergy not to do that, or if it did happen, trust the ANiC bishops to do something about it. The whole point of allowing the BAS is so that the church that are using it can continue to do so for the time being. I am sure we will have our own prayerbook in due course.
Part of the problem with the BAS is its shift from God-centered worship to man-centered worship. I, too, was disappointed at the Synod, as well as at the “Building on the Solid Rock” conference when the BAS was used.
Kate:
Nice to read you, again, deary.
Again, you don’t need to develop your own Prayer Book. The American PBS has even developed a ‘modern language’ edition of their 1928 Prayer Book. It was adapted by my friend Peter Toon. If we can’t trust him with the BCP, we can’t trust anybody!
https://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/shop.php?category=books&itemID=233
$15US a pop. In our present economy, that’s not a bad grab. In fact, I know of at least *one* philanthropical organization in Canada that could help you in the procurement of these, should you so desire.
A for the exclusion of the rubrics. This is a silly technicality. The book is still spiritually bereft of life. In fact, I am not convinced that it isn’t actually *harmful* spiritually. Indeed, the Lectionary it makes use of certainly is.
It must be an odd thing to sit in a parish – that supposedly left all the dreaful theology of the ACC behind – at the Eucharist and accidentally turn to the wrong Eucharistic Rite or prayers page, and see just how far gone the BAS really is.
Mike
“Part of the problem with the BAS is its shift from God-centered worship to man-centered worship. I, too, was disappointed at the Synod, as well as at the “Building on the Solid Rock” conference when the BAS was used.”
Stephen:
What you say is the truth, and – as one scholar puts it – the Prayer of Humble Access in the BCP has been changed to the Prayer of Righteous Entitlement in the BAS.
What a very odd conundrum ANiC has on their hands, indeed.
MGD
Just please – oh please – don’t sing that hymn about God, that Great Teamster in the Sky, “God of concrete, God of steel.”
Mike,
What a very odd conundrum ANiC has on their hands, indeed.
The conundrum of someone temporarily ignoring an ingrowing toenail during knee replacement surgery.
For those who are interested, there is more discussion on the BAS issue on Steve’s site here and on Mike’s site here.
#16 Couldn’t have said it better myself.
As one of the persons who drafted the liturgical resolution at the ANiC Synod, I would like to comment. The continued authorization of the BAS was a purely practical matter as that is the only book that many of our parishes had. To force a change to something else when there had not been work done to actually determine what that future form should take would not have been wise and would have been disruptive. It is also interesting to note that some conservative congregations, both inside the ACC and ANiC are using a lot of Common Worship material from the Church of England. In fact the entire ordination rite used recently in ANiC has been from that source.
So the BAS is a necessary accommodation to deal with the facts on the ground while the real work gets started on developing an entire set of liturgical resources for the future.
“God of concrete, God of steel”; Prof Clark was head of the music department when I was doing my BMus at Queen’s, he was also on the committee that put together that hymn book in conjunction with the United church. I interviewed him one time for a paper I was writing and we talked about it. The reason he wrote that song is he wanted to have some music which represented some modern developments in classical music and also to acknowledge that God isn’t just a a God of trees, birds and lakes, but of all creation, including buildings, airplanes and highways. That most people don’t like the song is an issue of personal preferance.
If most people don’t like it I would draw the conclusion that it isn’t very good…..
#13 If anyone doesn’t want to support the Anglo-Lutheran Book Store check Parable Books, conveniently down the road from me. Other Christian Book sellers should be able to get the BCP in various formats also.