Plenary address by Bishop Colin Johnson, on May 29, 2009, preceding the indaba session on a pastoral response to same-sex unions.

Bishop Johnson speaks to synod about the bishops' proposed response to same-sex relationships. Photo by Michael Hudson

Thank you very much for participating so graciously and fully in the indaba process this afternoon. The feedback that I received from the indaba process was exhilarating to say the least.

The animateurs and the rapporteurs were excited by what you had to say and tonight or tomorrow I will be synthesizing some of that and reporting back to you in the afternoon. Tonight we are going to move into our second indaba process, which is on a much more controversial issue: the proposed pastoral response that the College of Bishops is proposing for same-sex blessings in the Diocese of Toronto.

Every day at the Lambeth Conference, two of the bishops were chosen to present the press conference for the day. I agreed to do one of these. It wasn’t until later that I discovered that the day that I was to do it was the day that the same-sex blessings issue was coming forward as a conference topic. And then I discovered 15 minutes before the conference that I was to make a statement first and then respond to questions. It was a fascinating experience.

I was also an animateur in one of the indaba groups. There were only 15 indaba groups at Lambeth and it was also an interesting experience. And as we talked over the period of those 15 sessions, something deeply moving and converting took place. People discovered that whether they came from East Africa or Chile or New Zealand or Japan or North America or Europe, what they had in common was the mission of the church, the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ in their own particular context. And while people did not agree with one another about a whole range of topics, what they did agree on was that we needed to continue to be together, to work together, to talk with each other, and to discern God’s purposes as we engage together in the mission of God, the Missio Dei.

One of the things I said at that press conference was something that one of the members of my indaba group said. He said: “We belong to the church; the church is a household.” (And the Greek word for house has the same root as the words economy, ecology, ecumenicity). He said: "We are part of a household and the household is bigger than the bedroom." And indeed it is.

I’m tired of talking about sex. I’ve spent the whole of my episcopal ministry dealing with that issue. And I say issue advisedly. When I was elected diocesan bishop five years ago next weekend, I inherited an already planned synod, a special synod on the topic of sexuality. You might remember that. Under the spotlight of international press, we met together in November of 2004 and spent most of the day talking respectfully, civilly, responsibly, courteously, about how we might deal with the subject of blessing same-sex relationships in the Diocese of Toronto. And at that time if you remember, we had a full and frank discussion.

Tonight you have another opportunity for a similar discussion, not leading to a vote but leading to an opportunity to give advice and feedback. The College of Bishops met together in January at our annual retreat, and just before we began that retreat, we decided that we needed to sit down together and talk out what it might mean in the Diocese of Toronto to exercise generous pastoral care which the House of Bishops of the Canadian church had set as guidelines for the life of the Anglican Church of Canada. Having been together at Lambeth, having engaged in conversations with the House of Bishops in the Canadian church, and having had partnerships with various places across the world, we had a full, frank conversation and discovered that we had a whole lot more consensus than we originally thought.

Part of that consensus was that the way forward at this time, when there is no consensus within the life of the church, was not to engage in a legislative vote that sets policy, that enshrines things in legislation, but rather that we needed to recognize that in this period of time as we engage in a period of gracious restraint, when it is quite clear in the teaching of the church that marriage at this time is a holy relationship between a man and a woman in solemn matrimony and that that is a subject for the General Synod and not the Diocese of Toronto to define.

In that period of time when there are pastoral needs that are evident within our parishes amongst faithful people, how might we deal with those pastoral, individual circumstances in the most generous and gracious way possible while holding open the opportunity for further discussion and consideration by the wider church?

And we came forward with a proposal that was presented to the Diocesan Council and has now been brought to you for discussion tonight. It has been available since the end of January, and it says in essence that while the current status for the Anglican Church of Canada and the Diocese of Toronto is an adherence to a pastoral statement of the House of Bishops of 2007, in which wide pastoral generosity had been encouraged, the College of Bishops believes that further response should lie within the pastoral realm, and not the legislative one.

Any movement toward recognition of same-sex unions as marriage or to authorize particular liturgical rites would move us into the purview of General Synod beyond diocesan authority. But there are other possibilities, other models to consider. And so we propose six things.

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.

We need to be very clear about what the proposal is. It’s a proposal for a very limited number of parishes. Not for each parish to take a vote whether they want to do this or not – a very limited number of parishes, a handful, within the Diocese of Toronto. Places that probably already have indicated that that’s where they would like to move and only places where both the parish and the cleric can agree to that.

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.

Third, we need to recognize that we find ourselves in a pastoral situation where our neighbouring dioceses have moved quite a bit further in some instances than we are proposing. Fourth, we need to continue our conversations, and we have these conversations ongoing with churches, other provinces throughout the world.

Fifth, we are in ecumenical conversations, particularly with our Lutheran sisters and brothers, as they deal with exactly the same issues. And finally, we need to recognize that there will be people who are very much opposed to this. Either because it’s not liberal enough or it’s too liberal. Not conservative enough, or too conservative. And there are places in this diocese for people who hold those positions. We have places in our diocese at all levels, at the Diocesan Council, at the synod, at the executive board, the committees of our diocese, our postulancy and candidacy committee, new ordinands, and long-term members of the clergy, who hold the whole gamut, and that needs to be continued, regardless of what happens. The Diocese of Toronto is a place where we have always valued that diversity, and I have no intention of narrowing it.

So tonight I’m asking your advice. This is not something that is ideal; the question is: “Can we live with this in a period of discernment as a pastoral response to declared, identified and real needs?” And if you can’t live with it, are there ways to change it so that you could?

Those are the questions that you will be asked tonight. What do you find hopeful, what do you find is a hindrance, but in terms of how we engage in the mission of God in the context of the Diocese of Toronto in which we live. And I look forward to hearing what you might say.

The indaba process is meant to give you an opportunity to speak, but I remind you that in the indaba process, everybody needs to spend more time listening than they do speaking. Listening to one another, listening to the gift of the Holy Spirit who is present in our midst, listening for discernment as we turn towards each other in conversation, and come to some common mind even if it is not an identical mind.

Again, I remind you of the prayer that was written by a former primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, which forms the basis of most of my prayers every day:

Draw your church together, O Lord, into one great company of disciples, together following our Lord Jesus Christ into every walk of life, together serving him in his mission to the world, and together witnessing to his love on every continent and island. We ask this in his name and for his sake, Amen.