My Denominational Disciplinary Hearing Testimony

What follows is the testimony that I gave at my disciplinary hearing in March, which responded to a charge of defiance that was brought against me by the front office of Alliance Canada. I have since been declared guilty and had my license and ordination revoked. I am sharing this in the hope of reducing misapprehensions about my views and actions, and illuminating current realities for those who remain. The testimony is exactly as given, except for the removal of a few personal references and some information that may be covered by an NDA. These omissions are indicated by a four-dot ellipse. 

 –––

I am grateful to those who have gathered to seek truth in love today, and I am thankful for the provisions of the Policy on Discipline, Restoration, and Appeal for Official Workers (DRA Policy), which afford me this opportunity to respond to the allegations against me. Since I am charged with “defiance” related to three “directions” that were given to me by the President of Alliance Canada in the summer of 2025, what follows is my response to that charge, to be substantiated by my evidentiary documents and witness testimony. Because the President’s directives relate to what I considered to be a viable interpretation of Alliance policies on sexuality, I am also prepared to discuss the biblical, theological, and pastoral nuances of that issue as much as it takes for us to have a shared understanding. With regard to the charge of defiance, the reason I should not be found guilty is because I have tried to submit to the President’s directives within the provisions of the Alliance Manual. Allow me to elaborate on each directive. 

Directive #1 instructed me either to “take down” or to qualify my online essay that explained my interpretation of Alliance policy – and the fact is that I offered to do so. There was some back and forth about this, of course, because I understood (and still believe) my essay to be a valid application of existing Alliance Policy, rather than a proposal to change it. In any case, when the directives remained, I did not defy the President’s determination but submitted to it by offering to redirect my concerns to the General Assembly according to the provisions of Call to Excellence Article 7, which says to “follow C&MA processes to bring change to ... policies.” 

The reason I did not do this initially was because I had laboured to understand whether the position that I held required a change to policies, and discerned that it did not. Even though the General Assembly has not afforded much room for discussion in recent years, I was willing to approach the Assembly if it turned out that my approach to these issues was ruled out by policy and required an amendment in order to be sustained. I did not approach this question lightly but with many years of prayerful study, and I feel it is important that I relay some of that story here. 

The issue of same-sex marriage did not come up in my licensing and ordination in the early 2000s, but in my first pastorate I preached about it and oversaw a church discipline case in which it was involved. I made mistakes and learned a lot from that, and subsequently intuited a position amenable to the one I have today: which is to say I upheld the denominational position but leaned toward encouraging same-sex couples to other churches rather than insisting they had no place. Over the years I heard this discussed over coffee, but not in any denominational event that I can recall. In 2014 I moved to England and spent five years teaching ethics in a trans-denominational setting, such that when I returned to teach at Ambrose and rejoined the Alliance, I was more informed and confident in the posture I had intuited before. In my discussion with Alliance peers, I found that some agreed and some differed on how we would apply ourselves to the question of same-sex civil unions and ecumenical same-sex marriages, but we saw room in the policy for local and pastoral discernment according to conviction. 

As a professor at Ambrose, I abided by and instructed students how to hold the Alliance position, within the academically responsible practice of teaching the major positions fairly so that students can understand and discuss them in ways appropriate to their varied contexts. As a teacher I was called to treat students without discrimination, and to enable loving discourse by presenting arguments in their best light so that disagreement could be based on clarity rather than misrepresentation. When the Call to Excellence was updated to replace the call to “abide by” with the call to “endorse, teach, and advise” the Alliance policies, while I had unanswered questions about what exactly that entailed, I continued to teach the Alliance position alongside others, endorsing it not only for Alliance students but for others, and advising each according to their church commitments and convictions. 

In 2021, a previous Alliance President invited me to a special committee that was considering the question of transgender identity, and I was glad to help.... That plan was scuttled due to the Board’s hesitancy to discuss difficult matters in an election year, but the time of study led me to sympathize with the arguments for accommodating transgender identity, convincing me that it would be irresponsible and unloving for us to pass judgment on this matter without prior consideration together in Jesus’ name. So, I was disturbed by the unilateral decision to put a moratorium on licensing transgender workers. 

When I sought to express my concerns about this in line with the processes provided by the Call to Excellence – by offering and then asking to give what Robert’s Rules of Order call a “minority report”, first to the Board, and then to General Assembly – this was declined. Later, at Assembly itself, though I was told that everything in the Board’s Report is up for discussion, no opportunity or explanation was given, and my request to discuss it was put off and finally denied. Since I had signed an NDA to be on the committee .... the only option available was a “point of privilege,” which let me pose questions for consideration in a three-minute statement that would not be a motion. I was painstakingly careful in the way that I worded that statement, but the circumstances left me vulnerable to months of hearsay and misunderstanding, which I was not given an occasion to address. When my attempts to discuss this with the Board Chair and President were ignored for over 18 months, and then dismissed on the grounds of what the President had taken away from his listening circles, I was left to, as the Board Chair put it, “find a home within our ... position that allows you to serve with joy.” 

By 2023 I was a tenured professor, and I continued to feel called to serve this church family as one of its few active theologians. As my wife and I prayerfully considered our place in the church family, we felt called to patient engagement, and realized afresh that taking time for contentious theological issues is exactly one reason why tenure and the university exist. Our families had given to this denomination and school for three generations, and we felt a deep responsibility to it. I felt the Spirit reassure me of this when our pastor was preaching the gospel story about the friends who tore up the roof of a crowded house to lower a man with a disability to Jesus. When she asked us to imagine where we were in that story, I chuckled about how my socially-anxious tendency to sit at the back would likely have put me on the street looking in with the outsiders. Then it struck me that people would have tried to stop them from tearing up the roof, and I saw myself: I was a bystander who believed that we should not prevent their audience with Jesus.  

So it was that I continued to study these issues, and as I heard differences of approach in the denomination, I endeavoured to check what variances of conviction were available within the existing policies. In this redoubled effort to study not only the policies but the biblical and theological material, I came to be reassured of my earlier intuitions, and developed a stronger theology of marriage than I had ever held. As I worked to articulate and explain this, I presented my findings in multiple venues.... In these venues I encountered a variety of different approaches to the pastoral application of this issue, and I was sometimes cautioned about unnamed others who might be upset by my interpretation, but I was not told that it was out of bounds or directed toward processes of policy change. In fact, I felt fresh clarity about the “big tent” approach that I had come to appreciate about our denomination. 

Arriving at this realization was a comfort to my wife and I, since we felt called both to hold these wider civil and ecumenical postures, and to remain with this church family in which we had both been baptised, educated and licensed. The first time I expressed anything publicly about this posture was in a Goodreads review in February 2024, where I said “I'm a member and official worker in a denomination that does not perform same-sex marriages, but this book reaffirms my conviction that I can and should support same-sex civil unions, and that I can and should remain in working fellowship with gay Christians and affirming churches.” I also wrote to Faith Today to suggest this was not a credal matter and needed more discussion in Canada. Although in both cases I expressed interest in dialogue, no one approached me until my name was up for nomination to the Board of Directors in July, when the Nominating Committee was apparently inundated with complaints about me – some of which quoted that Goodreads review. Since I did not consider my view disqualifying, I was glad to hear that I was deemed a member in good standing and allowed to let my name stand. Unfortunately, I was never allowed to respond to hearsay and misunderstanding, even when it came up on the floor of Assembly itself, but I took it as a hazard of being a tenured professor, and tried to trust leaders to direct questions my way. 

In the months before and after Assembly 2024, despite ample opportunities to do so, no one approached me to suggest that my implied position was a breach of Alliance policy, or required Assembly permission. But because it seemed to be a matter of concern, and because I could do nothing about misunderstanding unless it was directed to me, I felt it best to carry on preparing to articulate myself for the sake of transparency, clarity, and accountability. I had been working on this for many months, but in early 2025 I honed my explanation as clearly as I could so that I could share it on my blog. To be doubly sure my view was okay, I sent the President a brief explanation of my interpretation when I signed the credentialing statements in early March, and waited almost two full months before I made the essay available online. The first time I learned there might be an objection to this was when I saw the President’s District report that claimed, without consulting us, that Ambrose faculty did not uphold a sexual code of ethics “that agrees with The Alliance Canada’s current policy” – even though several of us sign the Alliance’s statements every year, and all faculty agree to honour them. When this came out, I looked for an opportunity to discuss with the Ambrose faculty of theology, but was fired on May 14 before I got that opportunity. The first time the Alliance President asked me for a conversation was late July, while I still waited for the Ambrose Board to consider an appeal of my termination.  

The reason I relay all this is so it is clear that I came to this place not from a spirit of defiance but, as Call to Excellence Articles 4-6 put it, from “striv[ing] to grow through comprehensive reading and through participation in professional educational opportunities,” as part of “lead[ing] a life of prayer, study, and meditation upon God’s Word.” In this I do not claim to have been perfect, but I have faithfully sought “integrity and truthfulness” by deliberating in careful and accountable discussion with my “fellowship of peers”, both ecclesial and academic. As it says in the Call to Excellence and was already implicit in my education, licensing, and ordination, in all of this I have sought to “exercise my teaching/preaching responsibilities ... so that my presentation will be biblically based, theologically correct, and clearly communicated.” 

By referring to the Call to Excellence I mean to account not only for the way I have upheld it, but also to direct attention to the requirements it places on denominational leaders to make processes available by which workers can express concerns and seek change to policies. Though I did not intend to propose a policy change, when it was insisted that my position would require one, I submitted to that determination by requesting to be shown what processes I could follow to bring my position before the General Assembly instead. This is not defiance of my constituted authority; it is an appeal to the “ultimate authority” to which we are both responsible (as per Operating Bylaw #3 Article 2.6 and the preamble to the Policy on General Assembly). It is therefore my humble suggestion that the best resolution would be to show me a path to bring this to Assembly, at which point I could remove or qualify my online essay with an indication that I would be taking the matter to the Assembly for approval. The reason I need a path to be shown to me is because of a lack of clarity about directive #2, which I will now address. 

Directive #2 presented a particular difficulty because it added words to the policies it claimed I was breaching. We can discuss these at greater length, but a telling example was the addition of the word “exclusively”. I took this to be an addition not only in word but also in spirit, sitting in tension with other parts of the Manual, and with interpretations that I know I was not alone in holding. In the back and forth over this directive I was not intending to be defiant but to explain that I thought the directive itself went beyond what policy required. Indeed, if those words had been there, I would not have been able to come to the interpretation that I did, would not have posted it online, and would have known exactly where to consider proposing amendments. For this reason – if the policies mean what those added words say they mean – I humbly suggest that the best resolution is to bring those additions to the Assembly as motions to amend, so that the delegates can either update the Manual to reflect that greater exclusivity, or elect not to, thereby retaining the range of pastoral and local applications that we appeared to have. I could instead bring my own proposals, but the reason I need a path to be shown to me is (a) because the processes have not been clear and (b) because it is very difficult to know what amendments to propose when the words that create obstacles to my interpretation are not currently there. 

In order to respect the limits of time and the parameters of the specific charge brought against me, I will now move on to directive #3, but I am ready to discuss all this as long as it takes for us to come to an understanding. Directive #3 is difficult to comprehend because it holds me disproportionately “responsible” for what “a reasonable Alliance member” might “conclude” about my agreement with Alliance Statements, rather than directing us to seek mutual understanding as a fellowship of peers. As written, this directive seems to make me vulnerable to the foregone conclusions of people who never actually speak to me. As outlined already, I have gone above and beyond to speak and write in responsibility to my fellowship of peers in denominational and academic settings, where there can be accountable back-and-forth for the sake of understanding and correction. To ask me to recommit to write and teach with care and accountability would be fair enough, but to hold me responsible for the conclusions of anonymous and perhaps uninformed onlookers feels like a forgoing of Ecumenical Guidelines on “attentive discernment”, and of Call to Excellence Articles which direct us to receive and offer “responsible criticism” while “respecting” each other’s areas of authority. On this basis I feel it would be inappropriate to find me guilty of defiance, especially given the DRA Policy’s posture of “restoration” and its promise of “pastoral care”. Lamentably, since I was fired, I have been denied pastoral care from denominational leadership, and this discipline process interrupted my ability to pursue mediation with my former employer. 

Thankfully, however, I have not been totally alone. In closing I want to thank my wife Angie, my advocate Norma, and the handful of family and friends who have supported me during this trying experience. I also thank the people who agreed to serve as witnesses for me today....

To sum up my response, then, it remains unclear how I can be held in defiance of policies that do not exist in the form that the directives have shown them to me, especially when I have offered to submit that to the processes called for by the Alliance manual. 

Thank you again for your time and consideration. I pray we can rectify this situation justly and restoratively in Jesus’ name, and come together as a church to seek and speak truth in love. 

Personal News related to my Church Denomination

I am sad to report that, as of last week, Alliance Canada has revoked my license and ordination. This is the church denomination in which I was born and baptized, and these were credentials I held for 20+ years. 

This comes at the end of a ten-month disciplinary process that began last summer, when the Alliance President directed me to confirm my agreement with a selection of policy statements on sexuality. This might not have been a problem, but the statements shown to me were different than they appear in the policy manual. When I said that these changes need to be passed by our legislative authority (the General Assembly), and offered to submit myself to that process, I was charged with defiance for not doing what I was told. Over the months that followed, this charge was upheld through three rounds of disciplinary procedure, and then finally upheld by the Board. 

In the meantime, it turns out that the Board is bringing recommendations to General Assembly which will change the policies in question, making them more explicitly restrictive. The recommendations are not exactly the same as the modified ones that I was shown, but would have a similar effect. If these recommendations are ratified by Assembly, then the ecumenical position of conscience that I articulated will be ruled out for everyone, including church members, just as it has already been ruled out for me. I was registered to participate in Assembly as a voting delegate, but now I may only attend as a silent observer (because Angie and I are currently still members in an Alliance church). 

I will likely have more to say about this journey in the days to come. For now, I just wanted to share this sad news with you. Please know that I tried to handle this situation in good faith, and am not looking to defame the church that goes three generations back on both sides of my family. But it hurts to be expelled from the vocation I began 30+ years ago, and it is hard to see these matters being dealt with this way.

Gamaliel's Rule: A Devotional on Acts 5:17-42 for Alliance Canada

In September of this year I contributed the following to Alliance Canada's devotional series on Luke and Acts. The passage for this day was Acts 5:17-42.

 

I’ve always liked Gamaliel. Maybe it’s because he reminds me of the bully in junior high who suddenly decided instead to be my protector. Or the guy on the Skytrain who deflected a drunk from harassing a young woman. Or the elderly woman who seconded a motion at the annual meeting, not because she agreed but because she thought we should hear the poor person out. Or the friends on the rooftop who tore up tiles to get to Jesus. 

Gamaliel might have done more, but what he did is not nothing. Standing up to your own team can be the hardest thing to do. 

Acts chapter five is as intense as it gets. Pressures are high, fears are raised, and violence is at the door. Not even God is safe. We don’t often think of the New Testament as a place where God smites people, but Ananias and Saphira have just fallen dead at Peter’s feet for hiding their wealth to avoid giving their share. Peter might be a threat, except that he pivots immediately to healing and deliverance. Now the followers of the Disappeared Messiah are gathering a crowd. 

The text says the priests and Sadducees are jealous, but this is no petty matter. Even the best of us might feel the same in their shoes. They have been entrusted to protect the people from false messiahs and revolutionaries who not only lead people astray but are liable to bring the sword down on necks already held down by Roman boots. 

These aren’t close-minded legalists, it’s just that they’ve seen the people fall for this one before. Theudas famously promised to part the Jordan river, but his movement died as quickly as he did (5:36). Judas the Galilean rallied against oppressive taxation, but his revolt died with him (5:37). Watching Rome snuff out these upstart messiahs before the soldiers came knocking at doors must have become something of a relief. The Jews still yearn for a Messiah – they just needed to stop getting distracted. 

The Jewish leaders are not motivated by petty jealousy; they are afraid this stubborn Jesus movement might turn the crowds against them (5:26). Then who will keep the faith and fend off Rome? Pharisees and Sadducees disagree about a final resurrection, but they agree that crazy talk about resurrection only gets people killed. But Peter’s men will not shut up! And putting them in jail only ended up giving them a bigger platform. Now they are doubling down and making this an either/or between God and us (as if God is suddenly in the habit of making house calls rather than speaking through people). These fishermen must have a death wish. 

Come to think of it, killing these apostles could even be considered punishment for what happened to Ananias and Saphira, who had been our biggest donors. Peter must know he’s in danger, but he’s calling us out in public. Read the room, Peter! Learn a thing or two about real-world politics. Teeth are gnashing and hands are looking for stones. 

Until Gamaliel decides to spend all his social capital on a cause he doesn’t even believe in. 

Why would a person do that? 

We don’t know much else about Gamaliel except that the murderous Saul was his protégé. Some imagine that Gamaliel was secretly sympathetic to Jesus’ followers, shrewdly protecting their movement without attracting the whistleblowers. Others take his words at face value and hear him saying not to stoke the Jesus freaks’ fires. Whatever the reason for it, now we have what’s known as Gamaliel’s Rule: 

If it’s only human it will flame out or fade. But if it’s of God we’ll just find ourselves fighting God. 

At best, Gamaliel’s Rule says to hear people out, to seek truth patiently, and watch for the fruit of the Spirit to show itself even in unexpected ways. At worst, Gamaliel’s Rule is the privileged powerplay of those who can afford to not give the question oxygen. Ignore it and it goes away. 

At a pragmatic level, Gamaliel makes a decent case. Crucifixion and jail have only backfired so far. Eventually the movement will peter out on its own – especially since Rome is often willing to do our dirty work. The argument is persuasive enough to postpone the killing. Poor Stephen is next, but Peter lives to see another day. And the gospel continues to take off. 

So does Gamaliel’s Rule work? Sometimes it does. This year the church lost Gustavo Gutierrez, founder of Liberation Theology, at the age of 96. For most of his life he was enemy #1 in the upper echelons of Roman Catholicism, until he was partially and joyfully vindicated late in life. Somehow Gutierrez hung in there, losing neither his conviction nor his smile. Sadly there were others like Oscar Romero who did not live long enough to see such a thing. Gamaliel’s Rule is not a guarantee. Often it’s the wicked who prosper and the faithful who suffer. If time itself separates sheep from goats we can just sit on the fence until we come down on the right side of history. But it doesn’t work like that. Past or future success is not the barometer of faithfulness. 

As the apostles will show us in Acts 15, there is no short cut around sharp dispute (15:2). Snap judgments may prove to be unnecessary stumbling blocks (15:19). Questions require careful consideration in community (15:23). And it takes time to discern the Spirit together (15:28). 

Who are the Gamaliels in our churches today? Is there a good-faith trust in God to guide the community? Are we making room to seek truth in love? 

Who are the Peters in our churches today? Is it dead-certain whether they are for or against God? Have we made room to hear them out or are we rushing to push them out? 

If bystanders on the roof are trying to stop the guys from tearing up the tiles, will any Gamaliels step in and say “we’ll help put the tiles back, but for now let’s not keep this from Jesus?”

On supporting same-sex marriages from within a church that does not perform them

Please note: As of May 27, 2026, the position in this essay has been deemed incompatible with existing Alliance policies. I will clarify further when I am able. 

 

Not long ago when an NHL player chose not to wear a pride jersey in warm up, the Winnipeg Free Press traced his “personal convictions” back to his church affiliation, the Evangelical Mennonite Conference. When asked whether LGBTQ+ people would be welcome there, a denominational leader answered “absolutely yes” – everyone is welcome, “although they draw the line at performing same-sex weddings.” Since that sounded similar to the position of my own denomination, Alliance Canada, it led me to double-check: Aside from the restriction on weddings, are we free to actively support LGBTQ+ inclusion?

Around that time Pope Francis gave formal authorization for priests to give non-liturgical blessings to “irregular marriages”, all without changing the Roman Catholic commitment to only form heterosexual unions. Some saw it as a meaningless gesture and others saw it as sacred support for civil unions. But it surfaced an important question in my own denomination: Even if we only perform heterosexual weddings, are we free to support same-sex marriages established elsewhere?

This came to mind again as I sat in a denominational event where a pastor shared his decision not to attend the same-sex wedding of his gay son. As he spoke of the dilemma presented by our denominational requirement only to “officially participate” in heterosexual weddings, I realized that I had better double-check the policies: When invited to same-sex weddings are we free to fill out the RSVP ourselves?

After a deep dive in denominational policy, I wrote up the following. For those who might be helped by it, I am sharing what I found; namely, that the above questions can be answered with a yes.

Yes, the church-members of Alliance Canada are free, if not encouraged, to support LGBTQ+ inclusion in public, because we are committed to be a welcoming church.

And yes, we are free to support same-sex civil marriages – as long as we do not officiate them.

This second statement is the one I unpack below, and I understand why it may not seem like a position worth defending. Progressives may say it's not enough, and conservatives may call it a bridge too far. To the first I can only say that positions are formed and held in context, and I write this in responsibility to the church that ordained me. To the second I can only say that I've studied this prayerfully and carefully from within the church's shared commitments, even as it has delayed communal deliberation.

Before I explain further I want to be clear that I am not writing this on behalf of either my local church or my employer. I invite readers to discuss in good faith and to refrain from false assumptions. I should also be clear that what follows is mainly about church policy. Those looking for a comprehensive biblical-theological argument will be better off consulting the other resources available. That said, I'm sure it will help if I start with an overview of some biblical and theological considerations.

Biblical Considerations

As will be seen from the policy excerpts below, here is no doubt that Alliance Canada establishes the male-female pattern found in Genesis, Matthew, and Ephesians for the institution of marriages in its churches. To my knowledge the alternate interpretations of these passages have not been discussed by the General Assembly. Be that as it may, the question at hand is whether this denominational commitment to heterosexual marriage rules out support for same-sex marriages established elsewhere.

Here's the situation: If the biblical texts against same-sex relations provide conclusive timeless principles that prohibit same-sex relations of any kind, then it might be case-closed as far as the church is concerned – but it would still leave questions about how to honour neighbours in a secular society. And if the biblical texts against same-sex relations are interpreted contextually – with attention to underlying rationale – then it could make sense to support same-sex relations that are not modeled on those found in the first century.

This is not the place to undergo a detailed account of the exegetical arguments, but it is worth considering that the biblical texts which appear to rule out any and all homosexual activity for all time were denunciations of same-sex relations that took place against the backdrop of ancient patriarchy. These texts were conditioned by patriarchal norms in their denunciation of relations that were notoriously exploitative and/or idolatrous, but that does not necessarily rule out the co-equal marriages in view today.

Keep in mind that, while the biblical authors and their original audiences did not anticipate the advent of co-equal same-sex marriages, nor did they pursue the end of slavery or the softening of patriarchy in their time. Such eventualities arose from reconsideration of the patriarchal system in which biblical revelation was embedded, but to which it was not strictly beholden. This does not mean that the abolition of slavery and the adaptation of gender roles necessarily leads to the acceptance of same-sex relationships, but it does provide precedent for reading the sexuality texts in a way that carries on that same reconsideration.

Even though Alliance policy footnotes 1 Corinthians and Romans in order to support its commitment to heterosexual marriage, it does not acknowledge or address the disputes around such passages, and so does not constitute an express denunciation of all same-sex marriages everywhere. On the question whether a commitment to heterosexual marriage requires resistance to same-sex marriages established elsewhere (whether in civil or ecumenical spaces), both the policies and the Scriptures remain open.

While it is not uncommon to hear church leaders suggest that an exclusive commitment to heterosexual marriage is the only position that takes a “high view of Scripture”, it is simply not the case that only one position can be faithfully defended from within such a view. I don't mean to suggest that it is impossible to come to a biblically-defensible position on the matter at all; I only mean that it is incorrect to insinuate that anyone who disagrees is not a Bible-believing Christian.

At this point, however, biblical exegesis alone is inconclusive. We must continue to hold the biblical texts together with contemporary questions and seek a coherent account of what God is saying.

Theological Considerations

Christian theologies of sex and marriage tend to be informed by Augustine's influential account of the "three goods of marriage”; namely, procreation, fidelity, and sanctification. These have more or less stood the test of time, but that does not mean they have remained untouched. Modern theologians have typically seen fit to add a clearer affirmation of the good of intimacy and sexual pleasure, and have also added some qualifications of what it means to affirm the good of procreation.

In the twentieth century, Protestants explicitly reinterpreted “the good of procreation” to account for and affirm marriages that are non-procreative, either by infertility or by choice. They did this by continuing to uphold procreation as an overall good of marriage, but not requiring it of every marriage, let alone every sex-act. As stated in the resolutions of the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the good of procreation can be upheld by childless couples as long as they continue to contribute to the “the welfare of the community” rather than devolve into “motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience”.

Along these lines, Robert Song has argued that this good of marriage can therefore be extended to “same-sex covenant partnerships”. While distinguishing these from marriages, Song suggested that covenant partnerships which are not intrinsically oriented toward childbirth can nonetheless participate in the the overall good of procreation by promoting human “fruitfulness” in parallel ways. In other words, as long as childless couples are an active part of the proverbial village that raises the child (in ways appropriate to the their gifts and callings), then they can be said to uphold the goods of marriage. By resisting insularity and contributing to the good of inter-generational community, then, such couples can faithfully pursue and experience the other goods of marriage, namely fidelity and sanctification.

Song suggested that such partnerships serve as a sign of the eschaton, where procreation itself will be no more. But it seems to me that they might also be a sign of creation, wherein marriage is given to all (and is not set apart as the monopoly of the church). As Eugene Rogers explains it, a key gift of the marriage covenant is that it provides a context for sexual desire to grow out of grasping lust into the mutual good of self-giving love (as per 1 Cor 7:1-9), whether or not the couple has the religious convictions to go with it.

In other words, even if a church does not perform same-sex marriages it may have theological reason to honour them as extensions of God’s gift to humanity, providing all people with relational vows through which the “virtues are trained” (to borrow Rogers' phrase). Surely the goods of procreation, fidelity, and sanctification have a distinctly Christian character when they are pursued within the church, but even so it is possible to promote the goods of marriage for all who enter into them.

This is not the place to go through all the scholarship. My point here is simply that it is biblically and theologically coherent to support same-sex marriages that are established elsewhere, even if this is done from within a church that does not itself perform them. Now to my primary aim: to explore whether this is coherent with the allowances of denominational policy.

Denominational Commitments

To see whether the above position can be held with integrity within the denomination, we must consult its shared commitments. The Alliance Canada has a 136-page Manual, which is divided in three parts:

• Part A contains “foundational” policies that are “to be accepted and implemented”;
• Part B contains “official statements” that are “to be accepted and declared”; and
• Part C contains “guidelines to be taken into consideration as advice to be contemplated”.

In what follows I will work my way backwards, beginning with the guidelines in part C, before proceeding with the official statements in part B, and exploring the acceptable implementations in part A.

Part C  

Guidelines to be Taken into Consideration

The Guidelines at the end of the Alliance Manual are non-binding, but I want to take them under advisement first, so that the approach I am taking to the rest can be seen for its overall consistency.

Ecumenical Guidelines

In its Ecumenical Guidelines the Alliance takes a decentralized approach to ecumenical relationships.

“Making a list of which organizations are 'in' or 'out'," they say, "is both extremely complicated and could result in grieving the Holy Spirit and minimizing our Kingdom advancement.” Instead, the Guidelines point to the Apostles' and Nicene creeds in order to “form a basis of theological consensus” with the wider church, and then recommend “attentive discernment” to the Holy Spirit in every context.

According to these guidelines, “matters of secondary theological importance that have been debated by orthodox believers for centuries shall not be deemed of sufficient importance to hinder believers from working together to proclaim the Gospel in those places where Christ’s saving work is unknown.” This is important to note. Since sexuality is not a creedal matter, the burden of proof is on anyone who would escalate it as a matter for outright ecumenical dis-fellowship. And this would be a grave matter requiring thorough deliberation by the General Assembly.

When it comes to ecumenical partnerships, local churches are empowered to ask the Acts 15:5 question – “Does it seem good to the Holy Spirit and us?” – and to bear in mind that “the Spirit sometimes works slowly”. Rather than react reflexively “we must look for the trajectory or movement in others, not just their current reality.” This reminds me of Acts 5:38-39, where some were tempted to choose violence and Gamaliel called for patience: “If their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Even the Jerusalem Council made decisions which were later amendable (see Acts 15:29 and 1 Cor 8). To be a living tradition, a church's statements and policies must be open to revisitation; which requires the kind of good-faith relationships and engagements that it sometimes seems only a miracle could sustain. The Ecumenical Guidelines recognize how risky this can feel, but implore us to keep the faith:

“Attentive Discernment” is not a perfect science, but rather a place of honest reflection before God and with others in a community of faith.... We must provide freedom within the Alliance for various applications of ecumenical partnerships without judgment or scepticism. We have every opportunity to ask for clarification on decisions others have made, but we must be willing to trust the work of the Holy Spirit in them as much as we trust His work in us.

At this point it should be clear how much room there is in the denomination for a diversity of convictions and deliberations, as well as for support of churches and organizations that differ on "secondary matters".

Guidelines for Marriage and Family

The Guidelines for Marriage and Family similarly empower local churches to make pastoral accommodations in situations that can only be discerned in context. In this case, those who are “divorced or remarried on other than Scriptural grounds” may nonetheless “be entitled to the full privileges of fellowship and membership.” In fact, they “may be able to participate in leadership in the local church” if they follow “the process outlined in the Restoration portion of the Statement on Marriage and Family.”

If we peek back at the "Restoration portion" we find this: “In the case of past unbiblical divorce and remarriage, if someone confesses this as sin, taking steps to bring restoration to the relationship in as far as this is possible, they should be forgiven and welcomed in fellowship with the Body of believers.” Here we find precedent for full inclusion of those who remain in a situation that it would be inadvisable to change. We may have further questions, but so far we can at least see precedent for empowering local churches to decide that couples in same-sex civil unions should remain in their situation and not be hindered from the benefits of church membership and ministry. But to sustain this we must investigate the denomination's formal commitments.

Part B   

Official Statements

The Alliance manual begins with “core values” which say “we adhere to our statement of faith as a summary of key truths from the Bible that we agree on as a family of churches.” On close inspection, there are a few parts of the Statement of Faith which could be relevant to the matter at hand.  

The Statement of Faith

On biblical interpretation

Any denominational position on these matters must cohere with our commitment to Scripture as “the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.” My understanding of the “only” in this sentence is that it is similar to the sola in sola scriptura, which means it sits in relation to the would-be authorities of tradition or experience and does not overrule the living lordship of Jesus Christ. So we do not cavort to cultural trends, reduce Scripture to timeless principles, or hand our Bibles over to authoritarian inertia.

The Statement says that the Old and New Testaments are “inerrant as originally given.” I won't dispute that language here, but do need to point out that it does not default the denomination to a traditional position on sexuality. Any deployment of inerrancy that woodenly overrules considerations of genre and context is not paying enough attention to the literary-historical situatedness of what was originally given. Scripture requires illumination, and the Statement is right to point to the Holy Spirit who is “sent to indwell, guide, teach and empower the believer” in the interpretation of Scripture. One might wish it highlighted of the role of thecommunity in interpretion, but if we peek ahead at Operating Bylaw No. 3, we do see that it makes the General Assembly “the ultimate spiritual authority under God” for “seeking God's direction” as a denomination in this regard.

It is also worth noting that the “core values” at the front of the Manual “affirm the ministries of preaching and teaching in order to understand, obey, and apply the Bible to our faith and practice.” I take that to be a recognition that preaching and teaching have overlapping but distinct roles in the church's ongoing work of faith seeking understanding. Whereas preaching will focus on proclamation and guidance within a church's shared commitments, teaching will focus on understanding and discernment within the broader sweep of Christian theology. This is implied by the Statement of Faith when it says “the local church enters into relationships with other like-minded churches for accountability, encouragement and mission.” This puts us in an accountable discussion with other Christ-confessing church-traditions in the forming and reforming of our moral and theological positions.

On salvation and humanity

As a “summary of key truths”, the Alliance’s Statement of Faith does not speak to matters of gender or sexuality. Nor should it. While the majority of the historic church has held to a heterosexual view of marriage, that does not by itself escalate gender and sexuality to an essential matter for Christian faith. Making such a claim would be tantamount to outright schism and personal condemnation, and preempting a thorough discussion of the matter would be a deeply unloving thing to do. There is a proper place for making shared moral commitments, to be sure, but that does not make them universal essentials. 

The Statement of Faith does not essentialize gender or sex. It rightly refers to “humankind” as created in God's image, fallen through disobedience, and in need of a salvation that comes “only through Jesus Christ” (rather than some moral work on our part). In evangelical fashion the Statement also does not establish marriage as a sacrament, but refers only to “the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper”.  To my knowledge this would not preclude a local church from taking a sacramentalish view of marriage, but the Statement does not make this a matter of principle. To discern Alliance Canada's position on sexuality and marriage we need to press further than the Statement of Faith.

Statement on Family and Marriage

On the gift of marriage to creation

The first thing to note about the Statement on Family and Marriage is that it roots marriage in God's good gift of creation, identifying it as an outworking of God's relational intent for human flourishing. This is key to growth in God and to the formation of society in general. When the second paragraph specifies how growth in God occurs, it names the atoning work of Christ whereby we are adopted into a family that transcends our earthly families. So when the Statement reiterates that “God instituted marriage and family in creation,” it does not remove marriage from “the redemptive work of Christ's grace,” but it does acknowledge that the gift of marriage extends beyond the church's domain.

This resonates with a theology of “two kingdoms”. Just as God institutes church and government to serve distinct but reconcilable purposes on earth, so God provides marriage and family to serve not only the church but all humanity. Since Christians routinely submit to the government – which includes giving qualified support to government actions that are not the church's own – it is not inconsistent for them to practice ecclesial marriages according to church convictions while offering support to civil marriages as well. 

Allow me to illustrate. The same year I was baptized in an Alliance church I also attend the Sikh wedding of a good friend of mine, and this was not theologically incoherent. I could support that marriage, established on the terms of law and another religion, because God's gift of marriage is not only a churchly good but a creaturely one. Since it is not the Creator's design to give the Church a monopoly on marriage, Christians can and should celebrate and support the proximate creaturely goods to be found in marriages that are not their own. 

This is not to deny the particular significance of marriages performed in Christian community, but is part and parcel of Christian existence in God's world. It is theologically coherent to abide by the church's marriage commitments without withholding support for public marriages that participate in the proximate goods of God's creation.

I've already mentioned how Augustine's “goods of marriage” can be useful in discerning such proximate goods. For its part, when the Alliance's Statement describes marriage as Loving, Lifelong, Sacred, Intimate, and Exclusive, it is notable that they are all generally available goods (even if the church means something specifically Christian about them). God is not absent from the secular, but active on public terms. As the Statement says, marriage “has the capacity to reflect the nature of God to the world.” The sacredness of marriage may be intensified or repurposed when couples “are called to be devoted to God and one another out of reverence for Christ,” but it extends into the secular as well. 

On marriages in the church

When the Statement defines marriage it uses the language of “husband and wife”, identifying the heterosexual couple as a “metaphor of the love relationship between Christ and His church”. In doing so it echoes Ephesians 5 and its use of the ancient Groom and Bride as a symbol for divine-human relations. On its own this passage of Scripture does not rule out the possibility that same-sex civil unions could be recognized, supported, or even held sacred in some way, but the Statement's use of it does call into question whether a same-sex civil union could ever be enfolded into the life of such a church.

One thing that might prevent this is if the Statement on Family and Marriage included same-sex partnership among the valid reasons for divorce. However, when General Assembly 2022 adopted this Statement, it passed on that opportunity (and rightly so). What's more, since section 5 of the Statement says that parents are to be supported in their child-raising, churches should be very hesitant about the idea of separating same-sex parents who have children. The Statement does counsel temporary separation when it is a matter of health and safety for an ill-treated spouse, but it would fit the Manual's definition of "sexual misconduct" (see below) to falsely presume that same-sex couples are inherently “unsafe”.  

Quite frankly, there is not enough biblical or theological warrant to legislate this matter away from the grace and guidance of Christ's Spirit in context. Since it is theologically and morally defensible to sustain a same-sex civil union in the church rather than insist upon separation and divorce, local churches should be empowered to work this out in long-term relationships of discipleship and discernment. Pastors who do not share my theological leanings will nonetheless recognize this as a matter of local church empowerment to navigate life in relationship, making room for pastoral accommodations.

On pastoral accommodations

The Statement provides precedent for local churches to make pastoral accommodations even when they do not think same-sex unions are best. We see this when it says “divorce is not part of God's design” and nonetheless accommodates divorce in cases of sexual immorality, abandonment, or abuse. The footnotes indicate that the sexual immorality in view is infidelity, and by not listing same-sex partnership among the reasons for divorce the denomination has rightly left the matter open to local church discernment. Some may suggest that “it doesn't count as divorce if it wasn't a marriage in the first place,” but it doesn't change the reality that civil unions exist on the same legal basis as churchly ones.

The Statement provides another precedent for pastoral accommodation: Without diminishing the belief that a “believer is to enter into marriage with another believer” (2 Cor 6:14), the clauses on divorce and remarriage uphold the biblical instruction to “remain in the situation” even if one is married to an unbeliever (1 Cor 7:12, 20). We should “not be hasty to break marital ties,” it says, and we “should always bear in mind that God’s desire is to bring restoration to the original marriage relationship,” Why? Because the reconciling grace of Christ can “extend into even the most broken of marriages.” Even those who disagree with same-sex unions have reason to say what God has joined in public, let no one tear asunder in church.

The Statement doesn't go into this in detail, but 1 Corinthians 7:14 actually says sanctification can come to an unbelieving spouse through a believing one, which is an evocative thought to say the least. Consider this: If my Sikh friend had later joined my church, would it have nullified the terms of his Sikh and civil marriage? If his spouse remained outside the church the biblical injunction would be for them to stay together, and this would require a local church with the wisdom and empowerment to welcome him into discipleship in a way that did not leave it to his spouse to do all the compromising. There's a point at which this illustration breaks down, but the point is that local churches can and should be empowered to make these judgment calls. Local churches are, and should be, free to celebrate and support the proximate goods found in marriages formed on other terms than their own. Indeed, they should be able to explore how sanctification can extend into those marriages, rather than rejecting them outright.

Statement on Human Sexuality

This Statement clearly says that “God-honouring sexuality finds its expression in the goodness of either celibate singleness or faithful heterosexual marriage,” and it adds that “sexual intimacy outside of this protective bond is therefore contrary to God's good design for humanity.” This would seem to directly contradict the position I am exploring, but it depends how forcefully one draws lines around that either/or. 

Could God-honouring sexuality also “find expression” in same-sex unions that are enfolded alongside the church's traditional marriages? To my knowledge this question has not been seriously considered by the General Assembly of Alliance Canada. Be that as it may, when the Statement singles out differentiated male-and-female sexuality as the “expression” of God's design it also typifies same-sex sexual activity at best as a "struggle" and at worst as an intolerable sin. On the face of it this seems pretty cut and dry. However, there are two things to bear in mind here.

Once more on the question of accommodation

The first thing to bear in mind is the point named above; that the Manual also says that divorce is contrary to God’s design, but accommodates it in certain circumstances nonetheless. To say Christ “reaffirmed God's plan for sexual expression within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman” does not necessitate a strict refusal of any accommodations whatsoever. That the Statement upholds traditional heterosexual marriage in the church does not rule out the possibility of accepting same-sex civil unions on the minimalist view that those without the gift of celibacy are “better to marry than to burn with passion” (as per 1 Cor. 7:9). 

Along with the question of what it might mean to remain in one's situation (discussed above and below), there is the question of proportionality in addressing different kinds of sin. And in this regard it is important to note that the Statement rightly focuses more on sexual “objectification, abuse, or exploitation” than on the orientation of sexual desire. The Statement does not go into disputed passages like Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, but there's reason to believe that objectification, abuse, and exploitation are the harms those passages are primarily concerned about. There is at least some precedent for accommodating same-sex civil unions, if not supporting them as a contemporary extension of the good of ancient hetero-patriarchal marriages. This leads us to the second thing to bear in mind. 

On the question of same-sex orientation

One of the questions asked at the top was whether Alliance churches are free to actively welcome persons who identify as gay or lesbian. Behind this lurks the question whether homosexuality is considered an unshakeable "orientation" or is reducible to a choice based on mere "attraction". On this score, it is important to note that the Statement commits us to “treat all persons regardless of gender, belief or sexuality with respect and compassion.” This doesn’t commit us to one theoretical position or another, but it certainly commits us to real-life respect for how people identify their sexuality. 

Aside from the fact that “conversion therapy” has been made illegal in Canada, the stories of Love Won Out and Post-Courage show that same-sex attraction runs deep enough that sincere Christians who struggled against it have come to see it as a natural orientation. Some maintain that this orientation entails a call to celibacy, and the people of Revoice and Living Out are to be admired for following this through with a call to truer community. Others have wrestled with this and testified to God's blessing of their same-sex unions, however, and I'm not convinced our churches should close their doors to this possibility. More to the point, I don’t think our denominational Statements require us to. 

When the Statement says that one’s “sexual identity” can result in “temptation to sin” it combines the language of orientation (i.e., identity) and the language of sinful behaviour, but does not rule out the provision of civil marriage as a context for the relative sanctifying of sexual desire. Making room for pastoral accommodation or support of same-sex unions alongside the nurturing of calls to celibacy may sound to some like a mess, but the "mess" has already presented itself in plenty of churches, and I'm writing this to show that there is room to work through the complexity and seek the beauty in it.

Having worked through the official Statements, it now remains to explore the denomination's binding Applications to see if there is anything that rules out or adjusts the interpretation I'm exploring.

Part A  

Policies to be Implemented

Policies and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct for Official Workers and Churches

The Policies and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct do not directly address same-sex relations but focus on rooting out sexual harassment in general. They are worth mentioning, however, because the sexualized misuses of power covered in this policy are what some biblical scholars see as the primary concern of biblical passages traditionally taken to prohibit same-sex relations in their entirety (see Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10, Heb 13:4, and 1 Tim 1:9-10). 

The policy is also worth mentioning because its definition of “sexual misconduct” includes “making gender-related comments about someone's physical characteristics, mannerisms, or conformity to sex-role stereotypes” and “verbally abusing, threatening, or taunting someone based on gender or sexual orientation.” This obviously does not mean the church has to perform same-sex weddings, but it does call for non-discriminatory welcome of those who identify as gay or lesbian (not to mention trans or intersex).

Practical Application of the Statement on Human Sexuality

On official participation in same-sex weddings

Finally we come to the policy that makes the explicit restriction I identified at the top. Here is the relevant paragraph: 

Because of the C&MA’s understanding of God’s intention for marriage between one man and one woman as outlined in the Statement on Human Sexuality, no licensed worker or employee in any C&MA ministry or local church shall, under any circumstances, sanction, bless, conduct, or officially participate in a marriage ceremony, civil or religious, that does not reflect the intention of the Statement on Human Sexuality. No C&MA local church facilities or other properties belonging to any aspect of the life and work of the C&MA may be used in any way that would result in a marriage or civil union that does not reflect the intention of the Statement on Human Sexuality.

At first glance this appears to rule out attendance at same-sex weddings, but if so it would only do so in the case of licensed workers or employees. But attending and supporting a same-sex wedding is not the same as sanctioning or blessing it. Since the focus is on official participation it seems right to interpret the other verbs (sanction, bless, and conduct) as a reservation of church offices and facilities for the conducting of churchly marriages alone. 

Furthermore, the language is focused on formal involvement in ceremonies that do not “reflect the intention” of the denomination's Statement on Human Sexuality. It is always odd when policies refer to something as nebulous and disputable as “the intention” of a document, but therein lies the room for interpretation. In any case, it is clear that Alliance churches and official workers are designated solely for the performance of heterosexual weddings. However, it is also reasonable to conclude that this does not rule out attendance at same-sex weddings, or support for same-sex marriages, that are established in other contexts. People may differ on this, but legislation does not rule it out.

On the practice of hospitality

Here it is important to return to the preamble of the Practical Application of the Statement on Human Sexuality, which says “the church is called to demonstrate God's grace by inviting everyone into loving community through the practice of hospitality.” Acknowledging that “the church has historically struggled” to address these issues, it encourages churches to “make every effort to be a safe place of grace for all people, including those facing temptations and failures, providing accountability and support in the midst of struggle.” 

Not everyone will want to hear their orientation referred to as a struggle or a temptation, but it's important to note that the struggle is also the church's. In any event, the Practical Application of the Statement on Human Sexuality is framed in such a way that it makes sense if churches want to start with welcome and solidarity, make space to listen and understand, and collectively repent of historic harms before discerning together what a shared path of discipleship is going to look like. This does not happen in a vacuum, of course.

On restrictions from membership and leadership

Local churches are accountable to the sexual ethics of the denomination, which withholds membership and leadership from “persons who are, without repentance, engaging in sexual behaviour and relationships contrary to the Statement on Human Sexuality.” This “includes, but is not limited to pre-marital relationships, extra-marital relationships, same-sex relationships, and polyamorous relationships.” 

The sentence goes on, but we need to pause to reiterate that nothing thus far forbids a local church from laying out the welcome mat for gay and lesbian people. In fact, in light of the church's historic struggles on such matters there might be good reason for a local church to go out of its way to articulate a special welcome to homosexuals in particular. But they had better not do so dishonestly, which is why churches need to be up front about the sexual ethics that they are asking members to uphold. The authors no doubt intended "same-sex relationships" to refer to both the married and the unmarried, but later readers could be excused for retaining the possibility of penitently remaining in a same-sex marriage.  

What follows is a list of things that are not available to those who are unrepentant, including “formal membership” in the church, “positions of leadership in local church ministries,” and candidacy for licensed ministry in the denomination. Article 2 spells out these limitations again, this time more explicitly explaining that “leadership” refers to “pastors, elders, people in teaching positions and other leadership positions as defined by the local church.” 

It is worth repeating that there is nothing here to keep a gay or lesbian person from being welcomed into membership or local church leadership. Indeed, aside from the limitations on membership and leadership, there is nothing to prevent churches from welcoming sexually active persons of all kinds to seek Christ in the church community. But if people in the relationships listed above are to be considered for membership or leadership, a lot is going to depend on what it might mean to be “without repentance”. 

Repentance always takes place within concrete situations wherein not everything can or should be put back how it was. Someone can be repentant without pretending to be able to match everything up to some ahistorical ideal. Indeed, if God would have someone remain in a situation, then an over-zealous puritanical refusal to allow such a thing would not be repentance but disobedience. Clearly the Practical Applications aim to establish a particular norm, but in the contextual outworking of repentance there remains an appropriate amount of room for local church discernment and pastoral accommodation. 

If the denomination has made accommodations for those who have remarried or are recovering from a divorce or are not married to a believer, then why should local churches not be allowed to explore the possible range of pastoral accommodations in this case as well? And if the relevant Statements leave open the theologically coherent possibility of remaining in a same-sex marriage (whether civil or ecumenical), then a person who has repentantly submitted themselves for membership in a local church should not be dismissed out of hand but entrusted to local church discernment as to what repentant discipleship entails. 

Local churches don't get to make licensing and ordination decisions on their own, of course. But within them there is some freedom to discern the paths of Christian discipleship that map on to the leadership opportunities that exist in the church, and with this comes the opportunity for learning. There are denominational policy to which pastors are accountable, but the denomination, too, needs to listen for the Spirit who speaks to the churches (see Revelation 1-3).

A Call to Excellence

As a “code of ethics for official workers”, the Call to Excellence does not weigh in any further on matters of gender and sexuality, beyond requiring church leaders to “be sexually and emotionally faithful to [their] spouse and family.” However, it does include clauses on “Submission to Authority” and “Stewardship” which might be deemed relevant to the questions at hand. With this I will conclude.

The Submission to Authority section was recently revised by the Board in order to expand upon the Assembly's originally adopted call to “abide by the policies, official statements, and guidelines” of the denomination. The language of abiding by has been replaced with the language of “upholding”, and to this has been added the agreement to “endorse, teach, and advise, both in word and deed, in accordance with” existing policies. This change was not explained at Assembly, so it remains to be seen how denominational authorities intend to interpret “endorsement”. I see no reason why this should constrain anything that I have said above – unless the very act of exploring available interpretations is itself considered a breech of existing policies.

To any such notion I would make at least three responses. The first would be to reiterate that everything I am arguing here is meant as an interpretation of existing policies and not a deviation from them. The second would be to point out that the biblical and theological considerations that I have written about above have not to my knowledge been expressly discussed or denounced by the General Assembly. The third would be to point out that the meaning of “teach” is quite broad, and simply cannot mean that pastors and teachers are barred from educating their students or church members or peers on the breadth of options in the Christian tradition. The word they must be looking for is “preach”.

If it could be shown that the above interpretation ran contrary to existing policies, then I would consider this an opportunity to hone our understanding so that concern could be “expressed through established district and national processes” (as per the provisions of the Call to Excellence). In my view the best thing about the revised Call to Excellence is that it does not only addresses official workers but also calls district and national leaders to excellence by promising processes for considering disagreements and concerns. 

Since the “Stewardship” section calls workers to “strive to grow through comprehensive reading and through participation in professional educational opportunities,” it behooves the denomination to provide deliberative processes that are receptive to the questions that arise.

---

With that I close. I share this in the hope that it will be helpful to those who are asking questions like the ones I posed at the beginning, and in the hope that this will be received in the good faith with which it is intended. If church leaders or groups would like me to speak to these issues in greater detail, I invite them to be in touch. May Christ help us to seek truth in love as we are guided by the Spirit, who illumines the Scriptures and speaks to the churches today. Ecclesia semper reformanda est.