Sharon Dewey Hetke. Supplied photo

On Canons and Conversion

MY DAD, a pipefitter in Sarnia, ON, was radically converted to Christ at age 23.  Leaving behind his old life, he went to the front of a church in repentance and surrender. Following that event, he would lie in bed at night with his Bible open across his chest, praying “Lord, write your Word on my heart.”  And God answered this prayer. Leaving behind his own plans, my father  followed Jesus into 35 years of Pentecostal ministry and service.  As it happens, a love of reading blossomed as well, with the Bible and expository sermons (especially Martin Lloyd-Jones) and theology (J.I. Packer and many others) always at the top of his reading list.  

“Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97).

But why would we love God’s law, or any law?  For many, God’s law is a kind of “necessary evil” that threatens our freedom to live our lives fully.  I wonder if this shows a kind of naivete about what we would actually do with all that ungoverned “freedom” if we had it.  Think of a group of kids, a pad of ice, some sticks, a puck and no rules.  How much more enjoyable and meaningful, how freeing it is when there are rules that govern the game. 

My dad loved God’s law because he knew where his own unconverted heart had been leading him.  He also loved God’s law because it promised not only to restrain him, but offered a life ordered according to God’s good plan – a much bigger plan than he had been devising for himself.  

God’s law leads us into the restoration of damaged relationships, and a sense of purpose for our future.  God’s law both elucidates and distils his purpose for us in each aspect of our lives.  

What does this have to do with where we find ourselves as Canadian Anglicans in 2021? As many readers will know, on Jan. 12, a legal Opinion was released concerning the way Canons (church laws) and procedure have been treated in the Anglican Church of Canada over the last several General Synods.  The Opinion offers a close examination of a Memo provided by the Church’s National Chancellor in June of 2016.  In that Memo (which is not a ruling, though many have treated it as such), the argument is made that since our Marriage Canon does not specifically prohibit same-sex marriage, it is in fact permissible. The Memo also wrongly claimed that the Canon did not contain a definition of marriage, though it clearly did. At the last General Synod in 2019 a Resolution was put forward to change the Marriage Canon and remove any reference to marriage as between one man and one woman. It was defeated. But well before that many Bishops relied on that 2016 Memo to justify going ahead with same-sex marriages locally – this, despite the unchanged Canon.  

The Opinion, recently made public, finds the Memo’s arguments to be deeply flawed, and calls into question the widespread practice of local option. You can read the Opinion here: www.anglicancommunionalliance.ca/legal-opinion-on-canons-and-procedure-in-the-anglican-church-of-canada.

It seems that two issues are at stake in the Opinion: 1) the Marriage Canon itself, and 2) the authority and role of Canons and other governing instruments.  We must ask: How can the Church move forward and not make similar mistakes with other laws of the Church?

 

Canons and governance models are hard to change – and they should be.

The Opinion makes clear that our Canons are a mark of Anglican identity. We need to take great care when we handle Canons and other governing instruments of the Church.  There is a process in our governing laws to change important Canons, and this process must be followed, not ignored because the standards are high.  In this way the process serves to restrain us from hasty decisions that are not founded on Scripture and tradition. This careful approach is a defining mark of being Anglican.          

The Anglican tradition of episcopal governance is on the table this triennium as well.  While a general review of governance is of course healthy in any organization, some of the changes currently being proposed would lessen the impact of the bishops’ vote on future issues. This would be another strike against our Anglican identity, in which, since apostolic times, bishops are given a special mandate to guard the faith and preserve the doctrines of the Church.  

 

The underlying doctrine and tradition of the Church remains unchanged, no matter the decisions made at synods. 

It is one thing to say that careful changes can be made to Canons and governance in the direction of greater faithfulness to the underlying tradition; it is another thing to revise them in an attempt to effect a change to underlying, core doctrines and our Anglican tradition.  

And at some point we must acknowledge that a single province or branch of the Christian Church has no authority to change an important Canonical teaching on its own. In some cases it may take a long time to achieve consensus. In others, it may never be achieved.                     

     

These marks of being Anglican are a gift. 

To rebuild trust and unity within the Church, and to have good conversations even when we disagree, we need confidence that our processes are not arbitrary but are built on a rational foundation. We must be able to assume there is a continuity between what happened before and what will happen next.  We, unfortunately, do not have to think back more than a few weeks for an example of what happens in a secular democracy when the rule of law (or the integrity of an election) was under threat. There are procedures we must follow because they restrain abuses of power, and they allow for healthy discourse – even for careful evaluation and change, in some cases and over time.

Some might say that the kind of canonical observance called for by the Opinion would lead to our deciding issues in a purely legalistic manner. This is not so. The Opinion calls us back to respect for our identity as biblical Christians, to respect for our own procedures and laws, and to our relationships as brothers and sisters, even when we find ourselves in conflict. 

When the next proposed change comes – perhaps another controversy related to doctrine, liturgy or governance – do the leaders of the Church believe that the processes and procedures they lay out will be respected?  I would suggest that a serious consideration of this legal Opinion, and its implications for the future treatment of Canons and procedures, could serve the Church well and help us to move forward together in a constructive way, despite the imperfections and errors that will always mark our efforts.  

In the end, why does all of this really matter?  Our attitude to God’s law (which we find in Scripture and which is expressed in the laws of the Church) isn’t something that arises mainly in synods or councils.  It is about daily transformation, both as individual Christians and as the Church.  It turned my dad into someone who was a faithful friend to those struggling with addiction, loneliness or other troubles. (Tagging along on pastoral visits was always a learning experience for me!)  For him, a life-long love of God’s law, and a knowledge of the grace that writes it on our hearts, was a source of joy, and freedom.  

O ALMIGHTY Lord, and everlasting God, vouchsafe, we beseech thee, to direct, sanctify, and govern, both our hearts and bodies, in the ways of thy laws, and in the works of thy commandments; that, through thy most mighty protection, both here and ever, we may be preserved in body and soul; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. (p. 561, Book of Common Prayer, 1962)   TAP

For more on this topic, see https://anglicanplanet.net/a-bishop-respond…hill-doe-opinion/