For I am not ashamed of the Gospel

SO. GENERAL SYNOD. Before I get started, let me begin by saying that the good people of the Anglican Communion Alliance deserve an enormous amount of credit and appreciation. Certainly for their excellent work at GS 2019 itself–rallying troops, connecting like-minded Anglicans, and resourcing delegates for the debate – but also for the tremendous amount of work they have done behind the scenes over the last three years. It is difficult, thankless and underpaid work. So if you are a member of the ACC and wish to see a traditionalist view put forward, look up the Anglican Communion Alliance (ACA), take out a membership and send them a donation. ‘Nuff said on that front.

It is very much to the credit of ACA and the Communion Partners Bishops that the motion redefining marriage was defeated in its second reading at Synod. And this time legitimately and not due to some technical error. And while much has been made that it was only by a few votes in the House of Bishops, that is the way Synod works. I do not recall those now denouncing the system complaining that the Resolution passed at GS 2016 by the same few votes.

Those bishops who stood firm also deserve credit. Their names will be published in due course and a public backlash may well ensue. The cultural shift that has happened over the last decade now paints traditionalists on issues of sexuality with the same brush as bigots and racists. This is not just in the world, but in the church as well, as was evidenced numerous times during the debate. So pray for those faithful bishops.

All of that being said, we must acknowledge that the defeat of the motion changing the Marriage Canon is a bit of a moot point. It is estimated that 78% of Anglicans in Canada live in dioceses where the bishop has explicitly endorsed same-sex marriage and has given permission to move ahead or signalled a willingness to do the same in the near future. The Chancellor’s highly irregular interpretation of the Canon has been accepted by many as legitimate and other than as a point of principle, no change to the Canon is required at this point.

For some conservatives within the ACC, either in faithful dioceses or even within dioceses that have gone ahead with SSM rites, this may be enough to justify staying within the church. There is a certain logic in this, and these are difficult and multi-variable decisions. I trust we all carry on in fear and trembling. I would suggest that for clergy and parishes who find themselves at odds with the direction of their bishop, it may be time to revive the discussion of Alternative Episcopal Oversight, and again I would suggest that the ACA or Communion Partners Bishops should be tasked with leading this discussion.

For the reasons cited above, the Marriage Canon debate and results did not really interest me. Its current and continued practise has been established and I would suggest that nothing at GS 2019 would change it from being the de facto position of the ACC.

What caught my eye was “An Apology for Spiritual Harm” offered by the former Primate on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada. I am certainly conscious of the harm that was done by individuals within the church in their mission to the Indigenous people of Canada, and also recognise that there was a certain institutional heavy-handedness and insensitivity – the combination of which has caused tremendous harm to individuals and communities and has diminished the effective witness of the church.

That being said, the apology offered by the Primate goes far past individual and corporate sin in mission endeavours and at its most plain reading expresses regret for the ‘cultural and spiritual arrogance’ and ‘spiritual violence’ in bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ at all.

In keeping with the Chancellor’s bewildering use of an argument from silence in interpreting the Marriage Canon, perhaps the case could be made that the sentiment expressed within the apology is not at odds with the salvific uniqueness of Christ. But read it for yourself. ‘I confess our sin in failing to acknowledge that as First Peoples living here for thousands of years, you had a spiritual relationship with the Creator.’ ‘I confess our sin in demonizing Indigenous spiritualities.’ ‘I confess the sin of our arrogance in dismissing Indigenous spiritualities and disciplines as incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus….’ And specifically, ‘I confess our sin in declaring the teachings of the medicine wheel to be pagan and primitive.’

I would encourage you to read the Apology in its entirety but, again, on a plain reading it seems to state that the Indigenous communities of Canada did not and do not require our Lord Jesus Christ to act as a mediator in their relationship with God and that their traditional approach and practices were and are sufficient unto salvation.

For some time now, there has been discussion about how central human sexuality is to Christian faith and life. (I think we all remember googling adiaphora.) But I would hope that as a Christian church there would be clarity around our Lord Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life and the sole means of entering into a relationship with our Heavenly Father. I don’t find this lack of clarity on the salvific uniqueness of Christ at the highest levels of the ACC terribly surprising; it actually makes sense of the last 40 years of Canadian Anglicanism. I would suggest, though, that this articulation of it on behalf of the church should not go unchallenged by those within the church who stand with the blessed apostle St. Paul in declaring that “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”    TAP