In the interests of inclusion (or, depending on one’s perspective, to illustrate the meaning of doublethink) the Diocese of Toronto is permitting parishes to hold worship services where proof of vaccination is required for attendance.
I can foresee some problems with this. Suppose an unvaccinated individual who identifies as non-binary shows up; should ze be turned away? The conflict of competing wokery in denying entrance to a 2SLGBTQQIA1+ unvaccinated individual could, at the very least, induce clergy heart failure and, at worst provoke the onset of the apocalypse.
Read it all here:
But it has been pointed out to us that, due to our welcome of the unvaccinated, some other people have now been unintentionally excluded because they are immuno-compromised. These are individuals who cannot attend church or any public place where the unvaccinated may be present, as they are especially vulnerable, despite being themselves vaccinated. Their exclusion was never our intention.
To that end, we have heard the request from some parishes to offer services with a vaccine mandate, requiring proof of vaccination for entry.
After much discussion, consultation and prayer, the College of Bishops has consented to permit parishes to institute a new worship service – outside of their existing and continuing schedule of services – that requires proof of vaccination to attend. It is the College’s expectation that these restricted-entry services will be the exception to our worship offerings, and not the norm.
Worship OFFERINGS? Don’t they mean worship opportunities? Or are services of worship now like concerts, films and plays, forms of optional recreation?
Yes. “our [the College of Bishops] worship offerings”.
On par, in a marketplace situation of people willing to work and employers opening opportunities for work, an employer using rhetoric of “our work offerings”, when it is the potential employees who are actually offering to work. One has the choice of viewing such as merely slipshod use of language, or as revealing a generally masked power relationship where it is the mask that has slipped. I, influenced by Orwell, am inclined more to the latter.
Good intentions to exclude no-one…remind me to where the road of good intentions leads? Supposing a full-vax service was trialled and it was popular. So popular in fact that more and more people were coming to it, rather than to the main service which then became the alternative. This policy exception contradicts the original policy itself. Now, I’m sure there are no church members pressing for this new form of alternative service, members whose generous donations would be missed, are there? Perhaps they are even so keen to come that they will continue to forgo the chance to sing. Of course in my neighbourhood you can walk straight across the road to the Baptist church and sing your heart out (mask on). Good to see the Anglican church working hard to reduce its energy footprint by ensuring there’s no people and thus no need in a few years to open the buildings. Why do I bother?
It seems to me that there are no easy solutions in dealing with this global pandemic as far as public worship is concerned. God is more powerful than any virus. Perhaps, no restrictions may be required??? People can make their own decision. In-person, and online worship will be available, giving people the options to choose. For me, I may choose online worship for a while longer until the active cases fall below ten per 100,000 people. FYI – Hong Kong and Taiwan are doing quite well in limiting their active cases below 1.5 per 100,000.
What I am trying to say is this: it is important for the Government to protect the health of its citizens by imposing the appropriate health measures. It may be wise for the Church to provide different worship options (in-person or online). For myself, I am living in a relatively safe County with 5.52 active cases per 100,000 people as of November 12 (63.7 active cases per 100,000 in Canada on the same day).
I’m twice vaccinated with Pfizer. I don’t have to be but my customers do. I work for BC Lotteries for 29 years attend St John’s Vancouver for 39 years. I have to see customers’ Covid ID & Govt Picture ID too. Now, about Church attendance, some don’t go just because of the Covid-19. Some of our members are anti-vaccination that attend. If some feel vulnerable & want to attend due to loneliness & isolation I see no reason not to have Parishes that require attendees to produce Covid-19 ID. People feeling vulnerable can go to those places, they have a place to go. Our Church doesn’t ask at all but we have to wear masks for attendees. But the Choir Members have to show proof of vaccination. It’s amazing they don’t ask for proof of vaccination but they don’t.
It’s like a double standard for the choir but they’re giving off a lot of air when singing. I think they might wear masks when singing at the front but can’t remember. The other people up front don’t, Clergy, Organist, maybe the Choir too is probably why they must show proof of vaccination to remain in the Choir. One person I know is not vaccinated & a member of the Choir can no longer participate as a result of not being vaccinated. I used to be in the Choir when we were in St John’s (Shaughnessy) on Granville & Nanton (W28th) but stopped, all of that was -too much for me being up front, the robes & everything, everyone can see me. It’s easier just to sit in the pew.
And it came to pass that the reinstated 10.30am choral service as of January will be for those double vaccinated. Hardly the alternative as per the policy. This was always the main service and will be again. It’s a widely supported decision here at Christ Church Deer Park.