Diocese of Toronto: New policy deals with “Contradictory” visions of marriage
By Sue Careless
ON PENTECOST SUNDAY the Bishop of Toronto issued a new diocesan Marriage Policy that will officially permit two teachings on marriage – teachings that he himself calls “contradictory”. Later, in a letter to his flock dated June 12th, Bp Andrew Asbil wrote: “In the life of our Church, we are now celebrating the marriage of two people, regardless of gender.”
But the new policy has garnered strong criticism from some Toronto clergy.
“This is not in fact an action ‘of our Church’ – it is contrary to the laws of our church and to its General Synod,” says Dr. Catherine Sider Hamilton, priest-in-charge at St Mathew’s, Riverdale. “Nor are ‘we’ celebrating this marriage; many, on grounds of conscience, cannot. But our voices appear nowhere in the Bishop’s letter, and the lost voices reveal the fundamental emptiness of the promise to uphold traditional marriage.”
In his preamble to the policy, Bp Asbil refers to “marriage in equal measure” explaining that “our Diocese chooses to hold in creative tension two views of Holy Matrimony that are, at once, contradictory and yet legitimately supported and honoured by our bishops, clergy and laity.”
He continues:
“Clergy and laity in this Diocese will be supported in upholding and teaching a theology of marriage as being between a man and a woman or a theology of marriage that does not require the couple to be of opposite gender. While we are not of one mind on this matter, we are inhabiting a time of living alongside one another with mutual love, respect and affection….”
“The fact that a church and her bishops can legitimize two ‘contradictory’ views on the nature of human creation and purpose is odd, to say the least,” observes Dr. Ephraim Radner, Professor of Historical Theology at Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto.
“Contradictory views, of course, have long been held by members of the church. Such contradictions have been tolerated, combatted, or ignored for various reasons,” says Radner. “But to ‘legitimate contradiction,’ as contrasted with declaring divergent views ‘matters indifferent’ or ‘uncertain’ or ‘in the process of discernment,’ seems puzzling as an ecclesial practice. What does it mean to establish incoherence by episcopal fiat? To be sure, we live in strange times.”
In the new policy there is no mention of “conscience” but much is made of “calling.” So instead of a priest feeling he or she cannot “in good conscience” perform a certain action, we now have “if a priest does not feel called….” It would seem that much of the moral gravity of the decision has been removed.
The Policy itself states:
I. Any priest licensed by the Bishop of Toronto…shall not be compelled to marry any particular couple.
2. If a priest does not feel called to marry couples of the same gender but has been asked by such a couple about marriage, then that priest shall refer the couple to a priest licensed by the Bishop of Toronto who feels called to marry such couples, or shall refer them to the Diocesan Bishop of Toronto.
3. Any priest licensed by the Bishop of Toronto is permitted:
a. to teach and uphold a theology of marriage that requires the couple to be of opposite genders, or
b. to teach and uphold a theology of marriage that does not require the couple to be of opposite genders.
Fr. Ajit John, who is both a lawyer in Ontario and Associate Priest at St. Paul’s L’Amoreaux in Toronto, sees the new Policy as “an attempt to reconcile notions about secular marriage with sacramental marriage. The latter honours the purposes of creation and the figures embedded in procreation seen clearly in Scripture. The former builds on values conceived as ‘neutral’ and disassociated with any revealed truth.
“The stated purpose of the Policy is to hold together two contradictory theologies which are rooted in very different soil. These theologies, or approaches to marriage, are now loaded onto the backs of each bishop who is expected to embody each of these contradictions.”
The new marriage policy was approved by Bp Andrew Asbil while all four suffragan bishops, Peter Fenty, Riscylla Shaw, Kevin Robertson and Jenny Andison, concurred in it.
Canon Dr. Dean Mercer, priest at St. Paul’s L’Amoreaux, considers that “the most serious and deceptive phrase is ‘marriage in equal measure.’ By using this in a diocesan-wide document, the Policy changes the meaning of the word marriage, strips it bare of its moorings in Scripture and revelation, and, furtively, pressures its dissenters into the same position.”
Mercer notes that “the Policy mentions characteristics that are common in marriage and other human relations, declaring that if they are present in both, then both must be equal, abandoning altogether marriage’s grounding in creation and the incarnation: God who made us in his image – male and female; Jesus, born of a woman, who, regarding marriage, unambiguously points back to the creation; strictures in Israel and the early Church that clearly and without exception forbade its alternatives; soaring hymns that recognized in marriage the union of Christ with his Church; and the bracing challenge of Paul who saw the equal calling in Christ of every person, married and unmarried, the equal calling of chastity to the married and unmarried, and the preferred and privileged dignity of the unmarried in service to Christ.”
Sider Hamilton claims that “marriage in equal measure” is merely “rhetoric for the purposes of persuasion… a fiction that leads the people of Christ into confusion. Marriage is a gift of God, as our marriage liturgy says. It is given to us, in scripture and in the church, as the union of one man and one woman. There is no Christian ‘theology of marriage’ that disregards gender. There may be other sexual arrangements we can devise for ourselves but they are not marriage.”
She continues: “To subscribe to this policy is already to abandon traditional marriage. If there is in fact a desire to uphold traditional marriage in this diocese, the policy must provide for the possibility of oversight from a bishop who upholds traditional marriage and does not subscribe to this policy.”
However, in a Question and Answer section of the policy document, the issue of alternative episcopal oversight is rejected:
“Some Anglican dioceses provide alternative episcopal oversight for parishes/clergy that hold a view of marriage counter to that of their bishop/diocese. Will alternative episcopal oversight be offered in the Diocese of Toronto? Answer: No. The diocesan bishop will offer gracious pastoral oversight for all parishes in the Diocese of Toronto.”
Yet John deems the new Policy would make alternative episcopal oversight all the more necessary:
“If you look at the implication of all bishops in the College now having to represent themselves as supporting two contradictory theological positions, I say the argument is even stronger that those who hold to the historic position only should have a bishop who isn’t conflicted.”
Bp Asbil acknowledges that “While General Synod 2019 did not approve changing the marriage canon to include same-sex marriage, the House of Bishops statement at GS2019 sanctioned dioceses that wished to proceed with a local option to do so.”
Anglican Communion Alliance Director Sharon Dewey Hetke questions the policy’s wording on this point. She says, “Events leading up to that Statement by the House of Bishops and my conversations with some theologically conservative bishops after it suggest that they were acknowledging a practice that had been going on (regardless of its merit), and were affirming not local option itself, but the desire to walk together through their disagreement. The pertinent quote from that HOBS Statement is: ‘We are walking together in a way which leaves room for individual dioceses and jurisdictions of our church to proceed with same-sex marriage according to their contexts and convictions, sometimes described as ‘local option.’’ This may seem like a fine point, but I would suggest there is a difference between ‘sanctioning’ something and ‘leaving room’ for it.”
Bp. Asbil also recognizes that “Not all parishes are of one mind on the issue of Holy Matrimony. Balancing the pastoral needs of the parish and the integrity of the cleric is critical for the mission of the Church. It will be crucial for a pastoral strategy to be put into place to support the needs of a couple, the clergy and the parish when a cleric does not feel called to perform a wedding or the pastoral context of the parish makes this difficult.”
Under these new guidelines, a parish will not be encouraged to take a vote at vestry or at its Advisory Committee to become a parish that endorses marriage of same-sex couples. “The decision to marry a couple rests with the cleric, as it always has.”
Because the last General Synod did not approve changing the marriage canon, no bishop has the authority to permit the use of the BCP or BAS marriage liturgies at weddings of same-sex couples. Instead an appendix to the new policy includes American liturgies developed by The Episcopal Church that have been adapted by the Diocese for use in Ontario. The Diocese also intends to eventually develop and authorize a Toronto liturgy.
Same-sex marriage rites have been performed for some time in the Diocese. In fact, one of the suffragan bishops, Kevin Robertson, was married to his male partner in December 2018 in St James Cathedral.
“Our diocese in this policy drinks deep at the well of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times,” Sider Hamilton warns. “There is in this ‘contradictory’ vision of marriage no word of Christ, and so there can be no living water in it for our thirsting world.” TAP
