At its recent General Synod the Anglican Church of Canada took the first step in changing its Marriage Canon to allow for the solemnization of same sex marriages by its clergy. The entire process, beginning with the hasty vote in 2013 and concluding with the vote and miscount this past week, has been flawed and has inflicted terrible hurt and damage on all involved. We absolutely condemn homophobic prejudice and violence wherever it occurs, offer pastoral care and loving service to all irrespective of sexual orientation, and reject criminal sanctions against same-sex attracted people.
Though the change to the Marriage Canon would require a second vote in 2019 in order to come into effect, some bishops have vowed to proceed with same sex marriages immediately, contrary to the explicit doctrine and discipline set out in our constitution, canons and liturgies.
In passing resolution A051 R2 the General Synod has taken a further step in ordaining something contrary to God’s Word written and imperils our full communion within the Anglican Church of Canada and with Anglicans throughout the world. We believe that our General Synod has erred grievously and we publicly dissent from this decision. Resolution A051 R2 represents a change to the sacrament of marriage inconsistent with the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition of the Church Catholic and the Book of Common Prayer. This would be a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of the Anglican Communion on the doctrine of marriage. Sadly, this complicates relationships within the Anglican Church of Canada and as a Province with the Anglican Communion.
So, how quickly does Hiltz do a Schori and defrock ’em as examples?
I’d be more impressed if they actually did something besides issue yet another in the long series of bland statements from Anglican bishops confronted with clear heresy. St. Athanasius did not react this way. Nor did Maximus the Confessor. Maybe the example of St. Nicholas who purportedly slugged Arius might be a bridge too far for the famously polite and reserved Anglican clergy.
But seriously, how about the principled resignation? Have we fallen so far that men of the cloth value their pay check over their duty to uphold and defend Christian orthodoxy?
Ad Orientem might not be aware of one of the peculiarities of Canadian canon law, as a national canon needs to be received by diocesan synods before it applies to an individual diocese. If a bishop resigns, he faces the possibility of a successor who will quite happily encourage their synod to receive the revised XXI in three years.
As far as slugging is concerned, it’s not an aspect of Canadian decision-making (with the exception of Presbyterian life of the 1800s)–our cultural inclinations usually over-ride other considerations.
The victors get to write the history, and the losers’ words will not be included.
As a Canadian Anglican priest, I applaud what the bishops have to say. Passing the resolution to change the marriage canon is totally contrary to “the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them” which I promised to conform to 30 years ago at my ordination. This is an area where there can be no compromise for me.
As for what I personally plan to do in light of this resolution’s passing, I take my lead from something John Stott said in 1996. In an interview in Christianity Today (Basic Stott, Part 1, January 1996) he said:
[blockquote] There are three options for evangelicals in mainline denominations. The two extremes are to get out or cave in. The third is to stay in without giving in. The extremes are actually the easy options. Anybody can cave in: that’s the way of the coward, the way of the feeble mind. To cave in is to stay in but to fail to hold on to your distinctive evangelicalism. You just compromise.
To get out is to say, “I can’t bear this constant argument and controversy any longer.” That also is an easy option. I know people have done it and suffered because they have given up a secure job and salary; but it’s an easy option psychologically. The difficult thing is to stay and refuse to give in, because then you’re always in tension with people with whom you don’t altogether agree, and that is painful.[/blockquote]
Then when asked, “But no Christian can give unqualified allegiance to any institution, what, for you would be the signals that it is time to leave the Church of England?” John Stott replied:
[blockquote]I’ve always felt that it’s unwise to publish a list of criteria in advance. Nevertheless, I’m quite happy to talk about them. I think one’s final decision to leave would be an exceedingly painful one, a situation that I cannot envisage at the moment.
I would take refuge in the teaching of the New Testament, where the apostles seem to distinguish between major and minor errors. The major doctrinal errors concern the person and work of Christ. It’s clear in 1 John that anyone who denies the divine-human person of Jesus is anti-Christ. So, if the church were officially to deny the Incarnation, it would be an apostate church and one would have to leave.
Then, there’s the work of Christ. In Galatians, if anybody denies the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone, that is anathema: Paul calls down the judgment of God upon that person.
On the major ethical issues: the best example is the incestuous offender in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul called on the church to excommunicate him. If you want me to stick my neck out, I think I would say that if the church were officially to approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage, this so far diverges from biblical sexual ethics that I would find it exceedingly difficult to stay. I might want to stay on and fight for a few more years, but if they persisted, I would have to leave.[/blockquote]
It looks to me like we have exactly three more years of fighting ahead of us.