The Anglican Church of Canada’s commission on the marriage canon has produced its report. Insomniacs may find relief from their suffering by reading all 65 pages here.

The commission had no intention – and was never asked – to determine whether same-sex marriage is in accord with God’s intent for marriage as revealed in the Bible. Instead, it worked diligently to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is “theologically possible”:

It is, he added, one of three “logical possibilities” being put forward by the commission, and something of a middle way between the other two. The other two possibilities, according to the report, are, on the one hand, to see same-sex marriages as an “undifferentiated” form of Christian marriage, essentially identical to heterosexual marriages; and, on the other, to see them as “blessed partnerships” rather than covenants before God.

The commission said it arrived at a conclusion that it is “theologically possible to extend the marriage canon to include same-sex couples, without thereby diminishing, damaging, or curtailing the rich theological implications of marriage as traditionally understood.”

The idea appears to be to remove the boundaries that presently constrain marriage without changing the definition of marriage. It doesn’t take much effort to realise that this is a clumsy sleight of hand. There is nothing that is not to a large extent defined by its boundaries; remove them and you are left with – as in music when everyone plays any note they want no matter how irrelevant – nothing but noise:

Nicholls also stressed that the report does not suggest ways of changing the definition of marriage as it is currently laid out in church law. Rather, it is looking at changing those parts of the marriage canon that restrict marriage to male-female relationships.

“We’re talking about the same vows, the same purpose, and the same definition of marriage. None of that has changed,” said Nicholls.

The assurances made to conservatives during the 2004 General Synod that same-sex blessings would not lead to same-sex marriage were, as anyone with any sense knew, barefaced lies:

Given that the Canadian church already affirmed the “integrity and sanctity” of homosexual relationships at its General Synod in 2004, the commission said its report accepted that the current definition of marriage could be expanded to include same-sex couples.

Fred Hiltz is worried that the church might “come apart over this”. Perhaps Hiltz has had no access to the Internet for the last 10 years and is unaware that the church “came apart” over this quite some time ago. There were even lawsuits; did no one tell him?

Does it keep me awake at night? Yes, it sure does. I do not want to see the church divide over this. The St. Michael Report used the helpful language of “core doctrine” and other kinds of doctrine. Core doctrine meaning the kind that’s reflected in the creeds of the church. They [Primate’s Theological Commission members] said, in the St. Michael Report, that they didn’t believe the blessing of same-sex unions was a communion-dividing issue. I kind of think about that language still, at the back of my mind. I would hope that the church would not come apart over this.

The ”conscience clause” that permits clergy to opt out of marrying same-sex couples could, of course, be challenged in a civil court. Supposedly, the clause would hold:

The chancellor of CoGS, Canon David Jones, noted the “extraordinarily credible” legal opinion quoted in the report, suggesting that invoking the conscience clause could withstand legal challenge.

The question is, if a priest is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, would the Anglican Church of Canada spend the money necessary to defend him? I would not count on it. Dean Peter Wall from the liberal-extremist Diocese of Niagara is already muttering against the conscience clause:

Dean Peter Wall of the diocese of Niagara felt that the conscience clause goes too far.

“The drafters of the resolution were very generous—I think to a fault—with their interpretation of the word ‘congregation.’” He said, explaining that the Anglican Church “has always been based on synodical and episcopal leadership and direction,” and that he is “concerned about congregationalism,” and the possibility of an individual church telling its priest whom he or she can or cannot marry.

If voters fall obediently into line with current prejudices – theological possibilities, to use ecclesiastical jargon – the marriage canon will be changed at the 2019 General Synod, by which time no one outside and few inside the church – other than gay clergy and a handful of octogenarian conservatives – will care.

Read the entire article here:

The largest section of the roughly 50-page report will be devoted to biblical and theological reflection on the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. The report will also address other components spelled out in General Synod 2013’s original mandating resolution on the marriage of same-sex couples. These include the wording of any amendment to Canon 21 permitting same-sex marriage, the terms of reference of the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which created the Anglican Church of Canada, and legal aspects of a conscience clause protecting bishops, dioceses, clergy and congregations from being constrained to authorize or participate in such marriages against the dictates of conscience.

[……]

It also set additional criteria contained in amendments introduced by diocese of Algoma Bishop Stephen Andrews and Dean Peter Elliott, diocese of New Westminster. The amendments, approved by a vote, stated that the 2016 motion should include supporting documentation that:

• “demonstrates broad consultation in its preparation;

• explains how this motion does not contravene the Solemn Declaration;

• confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience; and

• provides a biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching on the nature of Christian marriage.”

I can’t help noticing that the wording of this article is always on the positive side of changing the marriage canon. For example, considering same-sex marriage has not existed in the church for two millennia, I might expect to see a theological reflection on the infeasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Instead, we read that the reflection will be upon the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Similarly, rather than explain how this motion does contravene the Solemn Declaration, we find the opposite. The bias is obvious, surely.

I wonder how this could possibly work:

confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience

How can a group of clerics expect any pronouncement they make about what may or may not occur under civil law to be taken seriously? Have they all taken a break from their studies of global warming to become civil rights lawyers?

In 2014, the Anglican Church of Canada set up a commission to consider whether the marriage canon should be changed to include marrying same sex couples. The chair of the commission announced that “everyone [in the commission] has an open mind”. It’s hard to believe, I know, but some were suspicious of this declaration of openness; after all, in Angli-speak, an “open mind” is code for “we’ve made up our minds but we want to lull the gullible into a false sense of security”. “Open mind” is just so much more succinct.

To bolster the façade, the commission invited Anglicans to submit their opinions and many have done just that.

Now the report is ready for at least internal consumption, it appears that the sceptics were right. Bishop Linda Nicholls has clearly stated that the commission did not try to determine whether there is any Biblical or theological warrant for marrying same-sex couples. Its task, she says, was to squeeze from the Biblical texts a justification for marrying same sex-couples whether one exists there or not: Anglican sophistry at its finest. Apparently, this revelation is “still not being heard”. This can only mean that the level of deceit has reached such proportions that the few remaining members of the ACoC have turned off their hearing aids in disgust.

My emphasis:

Bishop Linda Nicholls, commission member, spoke about the content of the report and initially about the commission’s mandate. “Our task was to provide the support for a change to the marriage canon. It wasn’t a debate whether a change was necessary or right to do, that will be the determination of General Synod,” she said. “It is a fine point but it is one we have to keep telling people because it is still not being heard.”

The report will include a consideration of the Solemn Declaration of 1893 (which established the Anglican Church of Canada), a consideration of the biblical and theological rationale for same-sex marriage, the wording of an amendment to the marriage canon to permit same-sex marriage, including a conscience clause. “We gathered a legal opinion on the conscience clause and how it might be worded so that it could provide the space for all members of the Anglican Church of Canada if it this were too pass,” said Nicholls. “The largest section will be the biblical and theological rationale,” she added.

Despite protestations that there are more important factors in being an Anglican than sex, Fred Hiltz has finally admitted that sex really is the uppermost thing on the minds of pastorally sensitive clergy. We all knew that. Even Michael Coren knows that.

“What’s churning in my gut and rumbling through my soul is that this matter is one of the most critical and crucial matters before our church”

Having already shattered the unity of the Anglican Communion by blessing the union of same-sex couples, the Anglican Church of Canada, in a rare moment of penetrating insight, is considering the remote possibility that pressing ahead with actually marrying same-sex couples will make things even worse.

From here:

The Commission on the Marriage Canon’s final report will incorporate not only the submissions received from Anglicans across Canada, but will also reflect consultations about how changing the church’s law to allow for same-sex marriage might affect relationships within and outside of the Anglican Church of Canada.

“It’s clear that as we engage our conversation around this potential canon, it has implications for our relationships with others — our relationships across the Anglican Communion and our relationships with our ecumenical partners,”

Bishop Linda Nicholls went on to note”

“We also recognize that at some level, this is a no-win proposition,” added Nicholls. “Whatever we put forward, there will be those who are unhappy, in pain, struggling.”

That just about sums up the ACoC: pain, struggling, unhappiness and no Salvation.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. The Lord Jesus Christ taught us that there is no marriage in the heavenly life; but it is my conviction at 76, having lost an exemplary husband to Parkinson’s Disease just shy of the 51-year mark, that there is nothing more significant in this world than marriage, both for those who have marriages and for those who have none.

Discussion in our branch of the Anglican Communion has most unfortunately been characterised by a number of serious misunderstandings, including but not limited to these: That the Holy Scriptures are ambiguous about same-sex physical intimacy; that we may not know what were the convictions and practice of the Lord Jesus; that the phenomenon was different in the ancient world; that the behaviour of those with same-sex leanings is genetically pre-determined; that Christian love requires us to ‘bless’ same-sex ‘unions’; that people of the same sex can consummate sexually; and that all love may legitim­ately find an intimate physical expression. It is important to note that none of these positions is held by serious biblical and theological professionals: for instance, even those very few scholars who hold that the Scriptures are mistaken acknowledge that they are wholly adverse to same-sex practice. For none of these positions has the case ever been made outside advocacy scholarship, for the very sound reason that such a case cannot be made, and the most positive thing that may be said of such views is that they are less than informed. That busy bishops and other leaders unequipped with the tools of the trade have not tested them is venial. What is less excusable is that our Church has not until now asked any of the tiny handful who are so equipped to contribute.

To address your questions:–

• How do you interpret what scripture says about marriage? It is monogamous, between a man and a woman, and ideally life-long, though the Lord Himself admitted the possibility of pastoral provision for failure, and ‘evened up’ the sexual inequality of His day.
• How do you understand the theological significance of gender difference in marriage? It is an acted parable of the love-and-response relation between Christ and his Church prefigured in the Old Testament. In it all of us His people are feminine, and His passion and our response are made visible in fruitfulness. Same-sex physical relations do not correspond to this pattern at all. Which is the husband and which is the wife in such relations? How do they lead in any natural way to offspring? How do they show Christ to the world when they are characterised by the first-listed of the ‘Works of the Flesh’ in Gal. 5?
• Is there a distinction between civil marriage and Christian marriage? Yes. It is to be doubted whether the church ought ever to recognise divorces on as many grounds as the State. Fur­thermore, if the State chooses to institutionalise a relationship which is a nonsense, or a contra­diction in terms, or which has an immoral act at its heart, this cannot be confused with Christian marriage or celebrated in church.
• The marriage canon describes “the purposes of marriage” as mutual fellowship, support, and com­fort; the procreation (if it may be) and nurture of children; and the creation of a relationship in which sexuality may serve personal fulfilment in a community of faithful love. What is the theological significance of:
  • companionship in marriage? My partner becomes both my closest Christian brother/sister and my nearest neighbour.
  • bearing and raising children? Together we sub-create unique persons to serve God and the world and to live for ever.
  • (the theological significance of) the relationship between marriage and sexuality? Mar­riage is essentially and irreducibly sexual, whatever other enrichments we may have added in Christian civilisation. The idea of husband and wife as best friends, for in­stance, was once very new. Unconsummated marriages have traditionally been capable of annulment, on the grounds that no marriage has been established in the sight of God or man. Same-sex acts may be genital, but they are precisely not sexual, because sex is by definition la petite différence.
• What is the difference between marriage and the blessing of a relationship? Are you asking about the public ceremony, or something else? In any case Christ’s Church has no authority to ‘bless’ what He does not bless, and such ‘blessings’ are of none effect. It never has been a sensible let alone godly way of running a diocese or a denomination to have something ‘blessed’ in some places which is believed to be sinful in others.
• How do you understand the sacramentality of marriage? As we always have, the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse, which only opposite-sex people can have, married love is the inward and spiritual grace created and nourished thereby. How can those be married who can­not consummate sexually?

I have arranged for you to receive by the end of the month in three shipments:–

8 copies of Holy Homosex?: This & That Priscilla D.M. Turner [one copy for each member, best read back end first for those without ancient languages, i.e. starting with my Brief to the Lambeth Commiss­ion, and paying careful attention to my Dialogue with Hugh]

The Bible And Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics Robert A. Gagnon [one copy to be passed around to all who have not read it]

O Love How Deep: A Tale of Three Souls Diana Maryon [one copy to be passed around to all who have not read it]

The Septuagint Version of Chapters 1-39 of the Book of Ezekiel: The Language, the Translation Techn­ique and the Bearing on the Hebrew Text Priscilla D.M. Turner [My Oxford doctoral dissertation, one copy provided for those with biblical languages and long immersion in the study of the ancient world]

These works should be considered part of my brief. Many people will be watching to see the content re­flected in your conclusions.

I will gladly travel at my own expense to discuss any of these matters with the Committee face-to-face.

Yours most sincerely,

Priscilla Turner

DR. P.D.M. TURNER