Alliance Canada calls sexuality a confessional issue (with apparent agreement from a dozen schools?)

When Alliance Canada recently elevated its new Statements on Gender and Sexuality to "fundamental tenets of the Christian faith," I said it was "somewhere between a mistake and a heresy, but was basically an act of schism." Some responded to this with incredulity, and others with alarm – so I thought it would be good to explain for the sake of understanding and potential correction.

When a phrase like "fundamental tenets" is used, it gives the impression that the issue at hand is as essential to the Christian faith as anything in the creeds. That it is not just a denominational distinctive, but has been elevated to universally credal or confessional status. But placing moral statements alongside the Statement of Faith does not necessarily escalate them in such a way, since the Statement of Faith itself does not replace the historic creeds. The Alliance manual says that the Statement of Faith is for its own churches, and does not preclude "working together" with others "who affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds". So, even the Alliance's "fundamental tenets" could theoretically still be ecumenically qualified – that is, held open for discourse and collaboration with other churches as long as there is agreement on credal matters. In other words, the escalation wouldn't necessarily signal a schismatic showdown – as long as there's room left for ecumenical respect and dialogue. If so, then Alliance leadership's reference to gender and sexuality as "historic orthodoxy" could merely be an underlining of their theological coherence and alignment with core Christian doctrine. 

But the Alliance leadership said and did much more than that. 

As the following will show, over the course of a year, the leadership of Alliance Canada asserted their views on gender and sexuality as a matter of orthodoxy that overrules ecumenical blessing, thus deeming them an essential ingredient to orthodox faith – even though they've never been part of the creeds.

Regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with the new Statements on Gender and Sexuality or not, as a theologian I found this to be a highly objectionable move. Which is not to say that there is no precedent for such a thing – at least in theory. There is after all a theological category for things like this; for moral or political decisions that are deemed vital to Christian faith, even though they are not core doctrine. This is called a status confessionis, or confessional situation. 

To call for a status confessionis is not to say that something is a matter of credal doctrine in itself, but is to say that a situation has arisen that tests the church's fundamental confession of Christ. So is that what this is?

This is no small matter. To call something a confessional situation is to do more than outline an denominational distinctive: It is to draw an ecumenical line in the sand. As I have often said in class, calling status confessionis is not just a trump card you can play to win an argument on social media. A confessional situation calls for something like an ecumenical council, if not with the worldwide church then at least with one's own tradition and then working out from there. 

Famous events of this kind include the Church's opposition to apartheid in South Africa, and the Confessing Church's opposition to the Aryan paragraph in Nazi Germany (as seen in the 1984 Belhar Confession, the 1933 writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and in this summary by Michael Woolf). The first of these more or less succeeded. The second did not. But both are now recognized as correct.

A more recent attempt of this kind is the 2015 Nashville Statement, wherein the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood asserted not only "that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism," but also "that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness" (emphasis added). Although this was tantamount to a status confessionis, it did not spring from or lead to ecumenical discourse, but only served further entrenchment. 

(FWIW, a couple years ago I asked Faith Today to help us do better, and wrote a book chapter that explains these classifications, with a reply by Colleen Jantzen).

So has Alliance Canada followed the Nashville Statement and ascribed confessional status to its newfound positions on gender and sexuality? So far it has only made its statements enforceable on its licensed workers, but there are three indications that it means to do more than this, and already has. In what follows, then, I will identify three events that show Alliance Canada has already made the ecumenically exclusive move of determining this a status confessionis: 

First, in the spring of 2025 it made indoctrination into its view of sexuality a criteria for affiliation with colleges and seminaries; 

second, it enforced this ecumenically exclusive position on persons like myself, removing their credentials and ordination and refusing their appeal to Assembly; and 

third, in the spring of 2026 it elevated statements on gender and sexuality to "fundamental tenets of Christian faith" for licensed workers, positioning itself to do so for all church members (pending some clarified implementation).

––––

1. Alliance Canada decided not to affiliate with colleges and seminaries that tolerate or support differing views on sexuality

Before I explain this, please bear in mind that I am merely reporting the findings of others. If the faculty, staff, or students of these schools wish to deny these findings, I would welcome those clarifications. 

In the spring of 2025, the President of Alliance Canada issued a District Report that outlined seven "educational values" and used them as criteria for determining its "affiliate schools". Because it was a District Report, it did not come up for ratification by the bi-annual General Assembly until this month in Calgary, when it was bundled in with a series of reports that would be ratified as long as no one drew attention to them. Unless I missed something, this ratification occurred when Assembly ran out of time.

There is plenty in the District Report that could be objected to on a procedural level. As the report itself admits, "the consultant [who works for another school] did not correspond with [the Alliance's official schools] directly", despite the fact that Alliance policy requires the denomination to "endorse and promote" its two official schools. In fact, the faculties of these schools were not even informed of the criteria that would be used to evaluate them. But that is not my main focus here. My point is to draw attention to the Report's newfound escalation of its "sexual code of ethics".  

 

The "sexual code of ethics" is the seventh "educational value" in by the report, which was used to assess whether schools are acceptable places of training for denominational pastors. Importantly, what was at issue was not whether the schools would honour the Alliance's views on sexuality – since the schools already do this – but the question whether or not these schools would be "open" or "closed" in this regard. Here is how it defines these terms [with italics added for emphasis]:

Closed schools are committed to upholding a traditional, historical sexual code of ethics with faculty and students that aligns with The Alliance Canada's current policy. Staff, faculty, and students are required to sign a covenant.

 

All open schools officially align with the Alliance Canada's current policy on sexual code of ethics in their public statements. The use of covenants with staff, faculty and students is varied. 

A footnote in the report explains this further: Since "open" schools are varied, the National Lead Team decided to allow "districts and churches to engage with [such schools] if their faculty have covenants in place that uphold a traditional, historical sexual code of ethics" [italics added for emphasis]. 

 

There may be all sorts of ways to interpret this, but since all of these schools were already able to teach and support students in this particular sexual code of ethics – and the Alliance's official schools were already explicitly committed to this – the issue at hand is not whether they would teach the Alliance view, but would "covenant" to do so to the exclusion of others.  

 

Notice how this plays out in the way the report differentiates between various schools. The following list delineates the schools according to whether the report considers them "closed" or "open", and whether their faculty and/or students are "committed" to "agree with The Alliance Canada's current policy."  

"Closed" schools where both faculty and students commit to agree with Alliance policy

Briercrest College
Heritage College 
Horizon College 
Millar College of the Bible
Pacific Life Bible College
Vanguard College
Briercrest Seminary
Heritage Seminary
Horizon Seminary
Tyndale Seminary
Providence Seminary
Trinity Western Seminary

"Closed" schools where only the students commit to agree with Alliance policy

Ambrose Seminary

"Open" schools where only the faculty commit to agree with Alliance policy

Tyndale University
Providence University College

"Open" schools where neither faculty nor students commit to agree with Alliance policy

Ambrose University
McMaster Divinity College
Regent College

For some reason, Ambrose Seminary's students pass the threshold but the faculty do not, whereas at Tyndale and Providence it is the faculty who pass the threshold but the students who do not. And there are three schools where neither faculty nor students pass the threshold. So what is this threshold? 

Again, since all the schools already teach students who hold Alliance views, the issue seems to be whether they will covenant to do so to the exclusion of other views. But is there a way to confirm this? I have not surveyed these schools myself, but I do know at least one of them recently broke off a partnership with a Christian organization simply because it works with non-affirming and affirming churches.  

Rather than run on anecdotes, however, let us consider the example of Ambrose University and Seminary, which also happens to be one of Alliance Canada's two "official schools" (along with the École de Théologie Évangelique du Quebec, which does not even appear in the report). 

 

As mentioned, Ambrose's staff and faculty already agree to "align" with Alliance's commitments, whether they are Alliance churchgoers or not. I could not find this on Ambrose's new website (which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there), but for many years the guidelines of the school said both that "Ambrose is in alignment with the position of our founding denominations" and that it "do[es] not require students to agree to this position in order to participate in the life of the university." 

 

This might explain why the University students did not pass the threshold, but it does not explain why the report says different of the Seminary. Most importantly, it does not clarify why the Report would consider the faculty commitments to be insufficient. 

 

Ambrose's website used to say that it educates "a diverse community of learners from many confessional backgrounds admitted from all walks of life," but it still says that Ambrose is "ecumenically minded", "welcom[ing] students and faculty from more than 50 Christian denominations." The educational principles of the school add that Ambrose "does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, physical or learning disability, or religion in the administration of any of its programs or activities." The Report itself does not explain why this is no longer good enough, and admits it did not consult Ambrose directly. 

 

Until the President's District Report, all anyone knew was that Alliance Canada's Policy on Official Schools commits them to "promote the teachings of the denomination as set forth in its statement of faith," and to "prepare persons to serve domestically and internationally in the denomination through alignment of programs and courses with the purposes and priorities of the denomination." One would think this Policy would need to be discussed and amended in order to expand affiliation or change the criteria. But suddenly it was no longer enough to "prepare" Alliance students to work within "the purposes and priorities of the denomination." 

 

Now an exclusive "covenant" was required, which faculty and staff were never shown, but which appears to be more pressing than alignment with the Statement of Faith itself. After all, according to the Report, the standard commitment required of these affiliate schools is not Alliance doctrine, per se, but the Statement of Faith of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. It is apparently less pressing that the EFC Statement and Alliance Statement do not make the same claims about inerrancy, atonement, or eternal conscious torment. Neither Statement says anything about gender or sexuality, but this is the focus of a covenant all the same.

 

But how do we know the covenant is exclusive? To me it seems to be (a) inferred by the report, but in what follows I will confirm this by showing that it (b) has already been enforced as such, and (c) has been ratified by recent legislation. 

 

_____ 

 

2. Alliance Canada disciplined a licensed worker for articulating an ecumenical position, even though they taught and upheld the Alliance view

 

The licensed worker in view here is myself. There were hints that another licensed worker was threatened with discipline for something similar to this, but these were never identified or confirmed. I have already written about my situation here and here, so let me briefly summarize before turning to the recent legislation. 

 

In 2025 I was subjected to ecclesiastical discipline because of an essay that articulated my ecumenical position on these matters. In the process I was directed to agree to a policy statement that said a licensed worker must not only teach the Alliance position, but do so "exclusively". When I sought to explore why that last word was added to the policy in my case, here is what I wrote:

Few if any teachers would say that being a teacher requires one to teach only Alliance policy... Teaching is not about indoctrinating toward one position, but is about empowering students to wrestle with and articulate the views that they hold, enabling them to understand and uphold the distinctives of their various church families. To teach an array of orthodox views for a mixed audience does not inhibit endorsing and teaching and advising the Alliance position for those who are current or prospective members. In your letter you liken this to taking one’s Alliance credentials on and off like a hat, but I understand it as a faithful way of wearing that hat in a way that is attentive to the specific relational commitments and contexts in which we live and serve. If the Call to Excellence means something as exclusive as you are suggesting, it needs to be explained to and voted on by the General Assembly.

In response I was told that a teacher could present contrary views for information and discussion, but must then endorse, teach, and advise the Alliance policy alone. When I inquired about this further, here is what I wrote:

In my letter I called my interpretation “ecumenical” because it is attuned to the question of how we hold our commitments in relation to those of other Christians, and because its approach is informed by our Ecumenical Guidelines. Obviously, the primary purpose of Alliance statements is to set out our church’s position, but as such they also show where we are at in relation to the wider Church. Despite what you seem to think, as a university professor I had no problem teaching, endorsing, and advising the Alliance position while also helping students of other traditions to understand and inhabit other theologically viable views, thereby helping us to dialogue truthfully and relate well to each other.

The response was short: One cannot endorse, teach, or advise anything contrary to Alliance policy, in any context. In other words, any Alliance worker or church or teacher or affiliate school will need to agree to teach the Alliance view to the exclusion of others, whether addressing Alliance people or not. 

 

To make a long story short, when I offered to retract my essay and redirect myself to the General Assembly to check what I thought was a viable interpretation of policy, I was disciplined for "defiance", was expelled from my licensed worker status, and was stripped of my ordination. But my point is here is not to centre myself and replay that whole story, but to name what the forceful rejection of my ecumenical interpretation ultimately signals for the rest of the denomination.

 

What does all this mean, practically? In the first place, it means there can be no open-handed teaching that empowers students to make decisions according to their convictions and contexts. But the directive to recant my essay indicates that it means a lot more than this besides: It means that Alliance workers cannot wear the local softball jersey if it has a pride flag on it; it means that they cannot reply freely to the wedding RSVPs of gay neighbours or coworkers, family or friends; and it means that if they know a gay couple who is interested to follow Jesus, they are not allowed to suggest an affirming church in town. 

 

Put together with the Report on Affiliate Schools, the logic of all this suggests that Alliance workers and churches must disaffiliate from non-profit organizations that do not share the Alliance's policy on gender and sexuality (whether they are Christian or not). After all, if teachers are not permitted to train students for work in such organizations, how can churches associate with them, or church members work in them? 

 

What does all this mean, theologically? It seems to confirm the inference of the District Report; namely, that this is not a matter for civic or inter-denominational cooperation. It is not enough to call it a denominational distinctive: Alliance workers and affiliate schools must teach and treat this as a confessional issue, a deal-breaker for ecumenical affiliation, fellowship, and collaboration. 

 

If these events did not make the situation clear, the third event certainly should. 

 

––––– 

 

3. Alliance Canada adopted a new Statement on Gender and a more exclusive Statement on Sexuality, calling them fundamental tenets of the faith

 

As mentioned, the 2026 General Assembly of Alliance Canada ratified a decision to place its statements on gender and sexuality alongside the Statement of Faith, calling them "fundamental tenets of the Christian faith." How this will apply to local church members is not yet clear, since the matter of implementation has been deferred, but aspects of the statements already pertain to members, as seen in the quotes below. 

 

Even though the Statement on Gender was never meaningfully discussed by the General Assembly, its assertion can be seen in the following lines:

The adoption of an identity discordant with one's biological sex represents a departure from God's good intent and does not lead to the wholeness God desires for humanity.... All are invited into the worship, fellowship, and care of the church; however, formal membership and leadership carry expectations of alignment with the theological and moral vision of the Alliance Canada. 

It may be hard to understand how the rejection of transgender identity can be considered a "fundamental tenet of Christian faith", especially given the possible placeholder status of eunuchs in Matthew 19 and Acts 8, but these questions were never addressed. As a matter of fact, the footnote to Matthew 19 stops conspicuously short of the relevant verses in that regard. Whether they know it or not, however, church members are now expected to be decidedly anti-trans. 

 

As for the Statement on Sexuality, its application to members, and its solidification of an anti-ecumenical interpretation, can be seen in its penultimate sentence:

No licensed worker, member, leader, ministry, or local church shall, under any circumstance affirm, sanction, or bless a union (civil or religious), relationship, or practice that does not reflect the intention of the Statement on Human Sexuality.

Notice how this goes further than the former Statement, which already reserved the Alliance for the performance of heterosexual weddings and endorsement of heterosexual marriages. What this amendment adds is the express denunciation of any marriages established elsewhere, whether they are civil or inter-religious. 

 

All things considered, then, this is not just a "fundamental tenet" for Alliance people, it is a criteria for acknowledging the Christianity of others. It also sets up a posture of civic relationship that allows the believer no freedom of conscience, and disavows affirmation of these marriages of state. This is tantamount to saying that Alliance Canada considers its sexual code of ethics to be a confessional situation, requiring a denial of support for any who believe or practice differently. 

 

Christian denominations will need to make theological and moral decisions on these matters, and it is their religious freedom to do so with coherence of convictions and processes. That is not the problem. The problem is that the universal Church has not had a council to determine this an indispensable ingredient of orthodoxy to the excluding others, let alone to the point of civil resistance.   

 

If this is what Christianity universally requires, one would hope for some ecumenical discourse on the matter. But in the Alliance's case, these Statements were issued a mere five weeks before Assembly, were not discussed in any meaningful way, and were rushed through in the waning hour of business. There was no discussion of disputes over biblical texts, and no explanation why people should be denied civic or ecumenical freedom of conscience. There was no acknowledgement that the ancient historic norm for marriage was patriarchal ownership rather than modern equality, or that gender and sexuality are absent from the creeds. And there seemed to be no awareness of the historic theological resistance to making sex-difference essential to the marriage analogy between people and God. But here we are.

 

Where does this leave the Alliance? Is a church member not free to participate in pride days at work? To work for or associate with neutral or affirming organizations? To refer to people by their preferred pronouns? To invite a trans person to church? To point a gay couple to the church down the road? To RSVP a neighbourly wedding invitation without having to make a religious objection? And if they are allowed to do these things, why can't they have pastors and teachers who help that make sense? 

 

The events described above suggest that the answer to the all these questions is no. And that this has been deemed fundamental enough to the faith to warrant the disaffiliation and discipline of anyone who holds a more ecumenical posture.

 

How should people respond to this? Personally, I do not think it is wise or warranted to simply accept the status confessionis and entrench on the other side. But if you find yourself exiled or unwelcomed because of a posture you felt Jesus led you to hold, maybe all you can do is "shake the dust off your feet," regroup, and pray that "you will be given what to say" if there comes another chance to discuss (as per Matthew 10:14, 20).

 

––––– 

 

To be clear, I do not think that churches and denominations should be forced to conform to moral positions that go against their coherent convictions and are protected by religious freedom. But I also do not think these issues should be escalated to a status confessionis – and even if I did I could not simply declare it without a meaningful attempt at ecclesial, academic, or ecumenical discussion.

 

It may be that the schools mentioned above did not know what they were getting into when asked if they would covenant with Alliance policy. Perhaps they did not mean to escalate gender and sexuality to a fundamental tenet of the faith for all, or to commit all students and faculty to such an ecumenically and civilly exclusive view. But that is what has been enforced on me, and was ratified just this month.

 

Then again, there were moments at General Assembly where delegates and committee members expressed an interest in de-escalating this situation – so perhaps there is enough will out there to begin to rectify some of this. 

 

At the very least I hope the above explains why I've responded to these events in the way that I have. But I am also very interested to reconcile what has gone wrong. And if I am allowed to hope for more, it is that schools will recommit to academic integrity, that students will opt for education over indoctrination, and that churches will prefer ecumenicity over pre-emptive schism. My aim here is not division, but quite the opposite. My hope is that even in our disagreements we might be ambassadors of reconciliation for a world that is so easily estranged.