Search
Home

Part of a series leading up to the Anglican Church of Canada’s 2019 General Synod. Previous installments may be found here.

By Ajit John

The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada is entering the second round in its debate over a change to its marriage canon, making it gender neutral. Many readers will know that the first round took place three years ago in July 2016. David Jones, the Chancellor of General Synod, had earlier issued a memorandum outlining issues around Resolution A051, which would enable same-sex marriages.

In the three years since, the chancellor’s memo has generated much private discussion, and been relied upon in several dioceses that wished to permit same-sex marriages without a canon change. A consistent complaint from both sides of the current debate has been that the memo poses serious challenges for the way the Church understands the formation of doctrine and its own governance. The purpose of this article is to address three problems that have arisen as a result of the 2016 memo; the lack of public discussion, the scope of the marriage canon and the attempts to bypass the Church’s canons.

Advertisement

Public Discussion

The chancellor’s memo has operated behind the scenes since 2016, generating essentially no public discussion, except perhaps for pointed comments in the House of Bishops. The memo, although addressed to all members of the General Synod, was not discussed on the floor of Synod or in a public airing of the important issues raised. Without a testing of its merits, bishops and synods in the intervening three years have proceeded to authorize rites that contravene stated doctrine as if discussion was unnecessary or irrelevant.

Scope of the Marriage Canon (XXI)

The most troubling part of the chancellor’s memo is its challenge to the scope and meaning of the marriage canon. The crux of the argument appears at paragraphs 31 and 32. It suggests that the existing Canon XXI on Christian marriage deals only with the marriage of one man and one woman and as such, cannot be taken to prohibit same-sex marriage.

“If the main motion [A051] is not passed by General Synod … this would not be equivalent to passing a motion to the opposite effect (such as a motion specifically prohibiting the solemnization of same-sex marriages). Not passing the motion simply means the motion was not passed” (chancellor’s memo, paragraph 31).

This approach raises serious questions about the interpretation of legislation and should be challenged. It puts forward an argument from silence that makes little sense to the average Anglican in the pew. Should, for example, legislation governing vehicles on a public highway simply be ignored by someone with a self-driving vehicle because ‘driverless’ vehicles are not mentioned specifically? Most people would say they do apply because autonomous driving is a subset of laws about vehicles on the road.

Of far greater significance, in my view, is that the memo has misrepresented the process by which Anglicans in Canada have tried to bring about or to resist the introduction of same-sex unions within the teaching on Christian marriage. For almost all Anglicans, the question all along has been whether to expand or not to expand the existing doctrine on marriage. Canadian Anglicans understand that the Church has already marked out the boundaries of Christian marriage in Canon XXI so that if the proposed change were not approved, same-sex marriage would continue to be prohibited.

All sides in the debate have understood Canon XXI to be the proper locus for change and the long debates over 30 years have been about expanding or not expanding it. For this reason, Resolution A051 in 2016 and its current version in 2019, asks the General Synod to recognize same-sex marriage as a subset of marriage, along with man/woman marriage.  If Resolution A051 had failed in 2016 everyone understood plainly, despite the chancellor’s memo, that same-sex marriage would remain prohibited.

Bad Governance

The chancellor’s memo specifically included a means of bypassing the marriage canon regardless of the outcome of General Synod voting. There was scope for doing this, it was alleged, in the authority given to provincial synods in the Church’s Constitution (subsection 7(b)viii of the Declaration of Principles). Provincial synods have the power to authorize special forms of prayers and services where no provision has been made by the General Synod or by the House of Bishops. For a provincial synod to use these provisions, though, it would first have to accept the chancellor’s argument that General Synod has not mapped out the boundaries of Christian marriage in Canon XXI, and thus has not ruled out same-sex marriage.

It was never the intention to grant provincial synods the power to authorize forms of prayer and services that specifically contradict the Church’s stated doctrines. Otherwise provincial synods could contradict doctrines collected in section 1 of the Declaration of Principles simply by approving a Eucharist for use by lay presidents, or a non-Trinitarian Creed for parishes in multi-faith neighbourhoods. Doctrines of the Church, whether mentioned in a canon or not, cannot be emptied of meaning by a provincial synod’s approval of special forms and services.

It is worth noting that this principle of non-violation of doctrine was specifically outlined in the magisterial work of the chancellors and legal advisers of the Anglican Communion entitled, The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The work was organized by Professor Norman Doe of Cardiff University, the leading expert on Anglican canon law. He was assisted by the distinguished chancellor of the Diocese of Toronto, Robert Falby. The collection of principles serves the whole Communion by identifying what Professor Doe calls Anglican “common law.” The principles were meant to cause Anglicans to think about what it means to be an “ordered” Church, and “to keep faith with our Anglican heritage, doctrinally, liturgically and structurally” (Canon John Rees, in the Preface to the Principles).

If you study this work online you would find in principle #55, concerning liturgical revision, that a form of service cannot be contrary to the doctrine of the Church (section 5). More to the point, section 9 states: “a bishop or other ecclesiastical body may authorise [a form of service] for use in a diocese, for which no provision already exists … provided such services are not inconsistent with church doctrine” [emphasis added].

We are together in a boat struggling as we have for three decades to be guided first and foremost by Scripture but also by the church’s formularies and canons, a very large portion of which we share with other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. These can prove highly effective in guiding the boat tossing about in rough waters.

The delegates to General Synod 2019 should take the opportunity to review the chancellor’s memo because it affects both the Church’s doctrine and its governance. The longer the memo is left unchallenged the more often it will be relied upon and the swifter it will take on the force of law by default.

 

Fr. Ajit John is an Associate Priest at St. Paul’s L’Amoreaux, in the Diocese of Toronto. He holds a master of law degree in canon law from Cardiff University, and a master of sacred theology from Nashotah House.

11 Responses

  1. Richard Grand

    “We have been struggling for three decades to be guided first and foremost by scripture.” Why three decades? Anglicans have traditionally said “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.” The use and interpretation of scripture has as many meanings and there are people. The Church produced the scriptures and it is “the Church’s book.” We are, in reality, talking about how we interpret and apply scripture. The phrase “guided by scripture” sounds lovely, but it implies that we have not always done so. And it depends on what the word “guided” is intended to mean in this case.

    Reply
    • CSEITZ

      “Anglicans have traditionally said “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.”

      One will search in vain for any anglican appeal to Hooker in this sense until the 20th century. Centuries of silence. And only, unsurprisingly, in the form of three legs of equal length on a stool.

      Hooker was clear that “to scripture the first obedience is due.” “Reason” was his rejection of Tridentine-type appeals to a second source of authority. Here he and Donne and Jewel ploughed common terrain. Tradition was common application of scripture’s sense through the church’s time.

      “The Church produced the scriptures” — the canon of the OT was received by the church, following the Lord’s own example. He is in accordance with an anterior witness predating the church. The 39 articles simply restate this fact on the ground.

      Sadly, late modern liberal anglicans have invented a history and a hermeneutic both, unrecognisable until our era and in the consumer West.

      Reply
  2. ken Evans

    The simple fact that such a letter and convoluted argument exists demonstrates the fact is the hierarchy and many members of the church has embraced heresy and as elected or appointed leaders who are “grounded in biblical truth” are not coming, it is time those traditional Anglicans say goodbye to Canterbury and barring those offshoots of “traditional Anglicans” who do not follow or use the BCP the basic difference which made Anglicans anglican.except in rushed services without music at awkward hours like 7 am) I am in Canada and left the Church and could find no suitable replacement, for folks like me the “church” no longer exists. The battle is o’er and for the forces of destruction and political correctness have the Victory. The only way I can interpret the loss is that this must be a part of what God needs done to allow for the fulfillment of his prophecy. We have not “handed the church over to posterity intact”. Certainly something my side has failed

    Reply
  3. Patrick Stapleton

    It’s too bad that Fr John has misquoted the Chancellor’s memorandum and has not cited the Marriage Canon at all. Had he, I expect he would have come to a different conclusion.

    Reply
  4. CSEITZ

    Looks like marriage canon change vote did not get 2/3 in HOB.

    It is an interesting outcome given the present essay and its background. Obviously no one in Toronto, thanks to the chancellor’s ad hoc interpretation, waited for this vote anyway. So it looks like disorder and ‘everyone doing what is right in their own eyes’ anyway.

    Reply
  5. CSEITZ

    “As a result, nothing about this decision will change our practice in Niagara; I remain steadfast in exercising my episcopal prerogative to authorize the marriage of all persons who are duly qualified by civil law to be married, thereby responding to the pastoral needs present within our diocese. Two rites of The Episcopal Church, The Witnessing and Blessing of a Marriage and The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage 2 continue to be authorized for use in our diocese, in accordance with our established episcopal guidelines.”

    Fairly representative.

    Reply
    • Elisabeth Staton

      Exactly, Dr.Seitz. As a former parishioner in the Niagara Diocese, I am writing a letter to Susan Bell today, questioning under what authority she is ignoring Canon Law.

      Reply
      • CSEITZ

        The (very rude) response of Mr Perry to Fr John confuses hauteur with clear thinking. He at least admits same-sex marriage was nowhere in view when the canon was written. But for him this means it is perfectly suited–by accident–to do duty for same-sex marriage because of what it has failed to stipulate (in a context where such stipulation would have made no sense). Then when it is so outfitted, and voted down, he pulls another rabbit out of the hat and says it does not matter.

        This kind of legalese is self-defeating.

    • Elisabeth Staton

      Also, Synod is not over yet. Don’t be surprised if some way is found to circumvent the vote before the end of Synod on Tuesday.

      Reply
    • Richard R.

      Those who go against the clear intentions of God who called gay sex an abomination, will have to answer to God as to why they disobeyed his clear instruction to have nothing to do with this sin. Jesus who is the author of scripture, said If you love me you will keep my commandments. Those who embrace same sex marriage show they do not love God because they deliberately disobey his commandments. On judgement day they may come to regret their defiance of the Lords clear intention with regards to gay sex and lifestyle.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.