The Diocese of Toronto is holding its synod and Bishop Colin Johnson is using Indaba groups to address – or to avoid addressing, depending on one’s opinion of Indaba groups – the pressing issues facing his diocese.
One of these issues is same-sex blessings. Since the CoGS is not requesting a change in the marriage cannon at the moment, Bishop Colin has to manoeuvre in the amount of space that CoGS, the HOB and the last general synod has provided: so in the wiggle room available, he plans to “exercise generous pastoral care” while holding to “gracious restraint”. The Indabas are not for decision-making, but for advice.
The plan is:
1. That episcopal permission be given to a limited number of parishes, based on the bishop’s discernment, to offer prayers and blessing to same-sex couples in stable, long-term, committed relationships. We are talking about people who want to live in a stable, faithful, long-term commitment and to find the support from the church that is necessary for them to do so.
2. That pastoral guidelines, but not an authorized rite on the nature of the prayers, be established.
3. That because these are pastoral situations, that the bishop is required to give permission in each case at this point, not unlike what we used to do when we introduced the remarriage of divorced persons, but not with such a machinery of bureaucracy.
4. That there needs to be an evaluation of this pastoral response to be undertaken within a year; that it is a trial period, an exploratory period.
5. That a bishop’s commission be formed to create the guidelines, to monitor the activity, and to review that.
6. That no parish and no cleric be required to participate.
The phrase coined by the bishop of Ottawa for this – destined to become a classic in the fecund breeding ground of self-replicating Anglican gobbledygook – is experiential discernment.
In a piece of deft Rowan-Hegel contrived antinomy, Bishop Colin tells us:
Secondly there are a number of questions unresolved because this is a pastoral approach that is meant to be an interim, not a final resolution, and at this time we are standing with a paradox, holding two things in tension with one another. Paradoxes are not resolved by choosing one side or the other while the paradox is being held.
One thing is clear: while we may not yet be going full steam ahead, the course is set, the destination certain and the results predictable.
Isn’t it simple: faithful to the Gospel blessed by God faithful to the secular world cused by satan.
We should change our name from Anglican Church to Indaba Church.
I’m thinking we should have T-Shirts made: “Do You Indaba?”, or “Indaba Daba Do!”, or perhaps, “Indaba Baby!”, on the front, and “The Anglican Church” on the back. Then we can have every Anglican wear them at the same time (some high holy day), so that the whole world will know what we stand for. Indaba!
My wife thinks we could wear the shirts on a new “Indaba Day” in the Church year.
hmmmmmmm lets see, Indaba – ask the advice from different people all with different viewpoints some right, some wrong, causing more confusion ( time )= hours, days, months – or read the Bible and get it right the first time with no confusion (time) = minutes
I just finished reading through the six group studies that are designed to help people with ACoC’s Vsion 2019 proceess. http://www.anglican.ca/v2019/missionstudy.htm
Reading through them I could see why the church has gone so far off track. Although all of the studies begin with a passage of scripture, almost none of the related questions asks the participant to examine in any depth what the scripture says, or what it means, or how it directs us to think. The questions are mostly about how people feel about things, or think about things. There is also a section where people are invited to make comments or send in a youtube video with comments http://www.anglican.ca/v2019/yourstory/index.htm. For those of you who read this blog and are still part of the ACoC I highly suggest you take a look and share your opinion on the process.
Or perhaps:
“Indabaginning….
Discuss.”
#6 Well Played!
Indabadabadoo? Or would that be insulting to the Flintstones?
Indaba bing, indaba boom!!
Haven’t trusted ACoC study guides for many years since their ‘biblical’ reflections are simply rationalizations for aberrant opinions.
But for fun I checked that website for Vision 2019 and in the 5th study it claims: “Climate change is increasingly regarded as one of the greatest threats to the wellbeing of our planet. More than 2,000
scientists who contributed to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict that by 2100 the average temperature of the earth will climb between 1.5 and 6 degrees Celsius, with consequences to the health and safety of all living creatures.”
However at this site (http://www.chp.ca/en/communiques/05-26-2009.html) I found: “The IPCC claimed that 2,500 scientists had signed the report. But fewer people know that in fact, it was primarily a panel of politicians; the actual number of scientists was 51. And since then we have learned that many of those scientists actually dispute the claims of the report, with some threatening to sue to have their names removed. So is there a consensus? No! Today there are more than 32,000 scientists that openly dispute the claims of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming, over 9,000 of them with PhDs.”
I think I would sooner trust the second site since their track record is better and they are not being blown about with every changing wind. But if the ACoC is so far off in even this secular issue, what other errors are there in that study guide?
Greetings everybody, I was at Toronto’s synod this past weekend and thought you might appreciate my impressions. First, Synod was not dull, which was a miracle in and of itself, no business was conducted of any kind, that will be done at another meeting in November. The bulk of the time was spent on talks and discussions around “Fresh Expressions of Church” the guest speaker Rev Philip Potter from the U.K. gave 2 talks about this program that he’s involved with which was then followed by an Indaba session where your group of 40 people talked about what you just heard. Each group had a facilitator who made sure everybody had a chance to speak and nobody crossed a line and a recorder who wrote everything done, the notes from all indaba sessions have been turned over to the dioceses. The discussion in the groups was around, what you found hopeful, not hopeful, what challenges do you see, and what you need for you and / or your church to do this. I found these very interesting, of course my church is already doing some of this.
Friday evening we had the indaba session around the issues of same sex blessing. The groups were pre-arranged to make sure you had a broad spectrum of people within each group. In my group there were a few people very strongly in support of SSB and a few people very much against, most other people fell somewhere in the middle, including a few who are just tired of talking about it. The majority of people were in favour. Although it was a very emotionally charged discussion, I felt it was good, that people heard what I had to say. I actually found one interesting thing to happen.
One of the things I said in the group is that I felt that what I considered to be the ultimate questions had not been properly addressed by anybody in the Anglican church, that being “Does scripture call a sexual relationship between 2 people of the same gender sin?” If scripture does not call it sin, they I don’t care what you do, if scripture does call it sin then no matter how much I may love and care about you, I can not bless the action. There was a gentleman across the room from me who strongly supported SSB who agreed with me on this point. He too felt that the theological question had not been properly addressed. He thought a commission or something should be put together by scholars to examine this question. I agree with him. A group of scholars, linguists, anthropologist, theologians gotten together to study the question with no preconceived expectations of the outcomes. As much as I may read on the subject, I am not a biblical scholar, I depend on the scholarship of others.
I have been thinking. This gentleman had spend time reading scripture and had come to the conclusion the SSB is not contrary to scripture, can I consider myself still in communion with him? We have come to different conclusions, but both of our conclusions are based on reading scripture. If the ACoC did do a thorough scriptural examination of this question and came to the conclusion that scripture does not call it sin could I still remain in communion with the ACoC?
For now SSB is on hold in Toronto. The bishops will put together a group of people from a variety of backgrounds to look at how we proceed from here. This group will report back to the bishops and then to Synod at some point in the future.
Cathy (#11)
As nice as this sounds, it will resolve nothing. The vast majority of theologians and biblical scholars over the centuries believed that the Bible was so clear on this issue that it didn’t warrant debate. Only with the rise of liberal theology in the past 150 years, and the subsequent challenges to many biblical doctrines, has this become an issue. No amount of “scholarly effort” will satisfy those who are pushing the SSB agenda unless the conclusion agrees with their position. It is better to expend energy towards more profitable ends. Given my perspective on the Bible, I believe that anyone you could find who had “no preconceived expectation of the outcomes” is not a believer in the inspiration and truth of Scripture. I guess I’m not a candidate for the commission.
The vast majority of theologians and biblical scholars over the centuries also believed that the Bible was so clear on the issues of women’s ordination, marriage after divorce, and slavery that they didn’t warrant debate. Just because you have no faith that the establishment within the church will heed what you believe the outcome of such a study should be does not mean we should ignore the question.
I didn’t mean that the individual members of such a study group would not have personal opinions, but that the mandate of the group would be to search for the truth, regardless of where it takes them. Not to search for justification for one position or another.
Cathy (#13), I don’t think the question is being ignored and I have no doubt that theological studies have been done. My point pertains to what questions are worthy of study. I am admittedly conservative in my perspective, but I’m not interested in being part of a church that believes the “jury is out” on the issue of SSBs and needs to be studied. I believe that any panel that you put together would, by default, be slanted in a liberal direction because many conservative, orthodox scholars would likely not want to waste their time on such an endeavour.
Speaking for myself, when it comes to WO and marriage after divorce, I don’t think that those who came before us were far off track or that we have become enlightened in recent times whereas our religious forefathers misunderstood the intent of Scripture. I view these as secondary issues, however. I believe that slavery is in a completely different category. There are no theologians or biblical scholars today, conservative or otherwise, who claim biblical support for slavery (to the best of my knowledge at least), although many believe the Bible is clear on the other issues. I think that slavery is more logically grouped with the crusades, where the Christian religion was wrongly used to further political and economic aims.
I may be out voted in this on line community, but my vote is that a theological commission to study the validity of SSBs is a waste of oxygen.
I have to agree with you Warren. Lots of study has been done on this as well as the other issues and the result is always exactly what people want it to be. The Bible is quite clear, especially on this issue, and no further study is needed. Just ask anyone to find a biblical reference in which the Author of the Word is in favour of SSBs and the room will go strangely silent.
I think the phrase “more merciful than God” describes the governing attitude of our day and it is just as wrong as the attitude of those who used the Bible to justify the abuses of the crusades and the inquisition… and the crucifixion.
#11 Cathy: My advice is to be wary of the kind of theology which disputes the historic teaching of the church on homosexual behaviour. It is of the same kind which during the so-called “sexual revolution” argued that heterosexual sex outside marriage was no longer considered contrary to Scripture. On both subjects, the liberal argument rests on an impoverishment of the words of Scripture. So, it was argued, it is clear in Scripture that a man was not to have sex outside of marriage with a virgin. Oh, but wait, the word ‘virgin’ only means a female under twelve! Therefore the prohibition against sex outside marriage only refers to specific relationship where one partner is under-age. So, you see, society and the Beatles were right all along is pushing for free love!
Romans 1 is about as clear as it can get in condemning homosexual activity. But watch for the liberal argument again which again shrinks the meaning of words till they refer to nothing in our present day.
“Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path” Ps. 199:105
Is a light dark? Does it shine darkly? How can God’s Word illuminate our paths if it is unclear in what it says?
If you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, namely, that is it perfectly clear in all that teaches, and thus that any defect in understanding is due to our sinful nature and not to defects in God’s Word, then any discussion on the matter is utterly vain. That your gentleman does not see the truth of what the Scriptures teach is a sign that he lacks the Spirit of God. Is an “abomination” holy to the Lord? Will the ungodly inherit the kingdom of God? Only a fool would fail the see the clarity in these statements.
Several years ago (5-7? I don’t remember) there was a series of talks in the Toronto Diocese which people in leadership positions in the parishes (pastors, wardens, lay delegates etc) were encouraged to attend. At these meetings several representatives from different perspectives were invited to speak. They were told not to get into the theology.
We were invited at one point to write to our bishops about what we thought about SSB, but were told not to quote scripture, that we should express feel and our experiences.
The indaba groups gave everybody a chance to express themselves, but again was not a forum for theological debate.
Yes there have been articles written by various people, some by scholars, some by people repeating and rewording what the scholars said, but my point is that the Diocese of Toronto as an entity has not, to my knowledge, taken a serious look at the theology and it needs to be done. I know full well that I can not predict what the outcome of such an examination will be, about all I could say is even after such a report came out that there would still be people who disagreed with it, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
There will come a point when two opposing view points will simple have to agree to disagree but until both sides seriously examine the other’s position it is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la”.
I am prepared to acknowledge that I can be wrong. I am fallible. I don’t think I am wrong but I will read and listen to proponents on the other side, not to do so is arrogant and intellectually deficient. I also know they can be wrong too.
Most of us arguing one side or the other aren’t actually arguing our own position, we are arguing the merits of other peoples interpretation of scripture since most of us can’t read the original languages and only have a superficial understanding of the ancient cultures.
As for the gentleman in question, from his perspective he has examined scripture and found it clear, that same sex relationships are not sinful and that it is I who has the defect in understanding the scripture. He is prepared to say that my defect in understanding of scripture is simply due to a lack of understanding of the culture in which the passages have been written. I think his position possibly based (I really don’t know him so I can’t say one way or the other) on a pre-existing bias about what he would like it to say. I am not prepared to make a spirit judgment against him that he lacks the Spirit of God or to call him a fool.
Cathy (#18), thank you for your patient and considered response; and for keeping to the high road – something I don’t always do.
Cathy, as reported today on VritueOnline, it looks like TEC is doing what you are suggesting.
The last paragraph summarizes where I expect things to end up if an ACoC Diocese establishes a similar working group.
Note for the blog administrators (pertaining to comment #20),
I have started to move away from embedded hyperlinks because, with one of my PCs at least, the hyperlink text is virtually indistinguishable from the regular text (there is essentially no difference in colour). Unless I move my mouse over the hyperlinked text, I would never know that there is a link. I notice in the original post that a hyperlink has a dashed underline, but I don’t know how to do this (and it wasn’t done in comment #20, which one of you changed).
It would be nice if the hyperlinks could be made more noticeable as I suspect that some people miss them altogether. That’s my 2¢ worth anyway.
Warren,
Yes I’ve noticed that too. I fear that the answer is probably buried somewhere in the WordPress configuration files and I doubt that anyone wants to do that much groping.
Sorry Warren, that was me. Thought it would make it look cleaner.
No problem – and it definitely does look cleaner. It looks like one of you needs to do some “groping” one of these days.
Well, considering the fact that what I know of computer code I learnt in secondary school, and was Basic…. Don’t look at me.