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 have 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. Before I begin I would ask my readers to bear in mind that I was born and raised, baptized and ordained in this denomination, and have loved it like a family – so I am not looking to defame it or to solicit a bunch of cheap shots. These are weighty and complex matters that are showing up all over the place; this just happens to be an exemplary instance of it. 

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 does not itself replace the historic creeds. After all, the Alliance manual establishes the Statement of Faith for its own churches, and its Ecumenical Guidelines are clear that this does not preclude "working together" with others "who affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds". So, 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 new language would not necessarily signal a schismatic showdown, as long as there's room left for ecumenical respect and dialogue. If that were the case, then calling gender and sexuality a matter of "historic orthodoxy" would simply be underlining its alignment with core Christian doctrine. 

But the leaders of Alliance Canada have said and done 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 a 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. The first of these more or less succeeded. The second did not. But both are now recognized as correct. (See the 1984 Belhar Confession, the 1933 writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and this summary by Michael Woolf).

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 sought affiliation with colleges and seminaries based on whether they would indoctrinate into its view of sexuality alone; 

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).

To show how this an anti-ecumenical escalation rather than a denominational point of clarification, it will probably help to trace the details of each.

––––

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 escalation to an anti-ecumenical posture 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 disaffiliation.   

 

If this is what Christianity universally requires, one would hope for some ecumenical discourse on the matter. Educational institutions should know this most of all, and should remember their vocation to be a site for such discourse, even and especially as they uphold particular moral and doctrinal commitments.

 

As for Alliance Canada, despite a "white paper on theological anthropology" that was alleged to set the stage for the policies to come, none of this was discussed in any meaningful way with the faculties or the churches involved. The report on affiliate schools was a surprise to most, and the new policies were issued five weeks before Assembly and then rushed through in the waning hour of business. 

 

There was no discussion of disputed 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 some at General Assembly who expressed an interest in deescalating this situation – so perhaps there will yet be an attempt to hear them out and 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.

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. 

Joys in the Grief (a facebook post about my church)

Just got home from church, on what could be my last Sunday worshipping in the Alliance, depending whether its General Assembly passes Recommendations 9 and 15 this week [which would escalate its views on gender and sexuality to fundamental tenets of the faith, retroactively required of members]. It could have been a grumpy morning – except when I was greeted so warmly by Casey I remembered the words of my friend Christina, who, even though this is the church that would not ordain her, taught me that joy is a mode of resistance. 

So here are just some of the joys that came to mind today, in no particular order, as I reflected on my decades in the Alliance church: I thought of Doug, a loving light of his generation, who always went out of his way to encourage me, and did so once again when I ran into him last week in Winnipeg. 

And his son Mike, who for reasons unknown made us listen to John Hagee while he drove us to college soccer tournaments in the blizzardy prairies. 

And my first "boss", Wendy, whose kindness and gentle grit showed me the way. And Glendyne and Doug, whose whole family could be mentioned here, who always had a hug for us, and who taught me that "good policy is a work of love". 

And Mel, that revered elder statesmen of our denomination, who didn't bat an eye when my college roommate Josh called him Sly, and who took time for me on a retreat when I was a young pastor existentially drowning in willow-creek propaganda. 

And what can I say about that incredible time at Bible College. From car security to the cafeteria, from Tuna Jackson and Hoos to Dan-imal and Mayert , from Jesse and Wade to the friends on Skitch and Main Ladies – who would I even be without all these and more? 

And then there's the elders of my first church in Selkirk, who took a chance on a young senior pastor, made me cap it at 45 hour weeks, and who didn't even get that mad when I took off for seminary (for what I now know was a willow recovery program). 

And the good and gracious people of that church, with whom we did winter olympics and lake baptisms and ampitheatre services, and who – by holding Jean and Lena at the sacred heart of the church – taught me disability theology before I ever heard of it. 

And the people and staff and elders of Beverly and Richmond Alliance Churches, with whom I re-learned the ministry again – the latter of which hosted the ordination of Eunice Smith, the first woman (retroactively) ordained in the Alliance. 

And the people of the so-called Orchard – who basically prayed that thing over the line. 

And then there's Dave, the most engaged of Assembly delegates, who I have respected as such for two decades, whether we found ourselves making friendly amendments against each other, or with.

And as little as I care for church music, I can't help but think of all the communion service segues to Be Thou My Vision or How Great is our God – whether led by Gene Rivard or Nathan Carroll or the Ferguson-Uskiw band. 

And there's the Heritage small group. Jen and Dwayne and their support over Rook. And Phil dedicating our kids, and Rachel sending them birthday cards every year since. 

And of course there's Grandpa Mel and Grandma Lois, who it was always special to sit with in Peace Portal church, who belted the hymns and didn't care if they were off-tune, who handed us loonies to put in the offering plate as often as they handed us loonies to go for ice cream, and whose prayerful servant hearts are the stuff that this denomination was built on. 

Or Grandpa Roy and Grandma Justine, who also gave so much to me and to this denomination and basically anybody, who could be a bit old-school but who always warmly opened their home for college friends to get a meal, and who were not ashamed to be seen with me at Rosewood church after I'd shaved MM III into my head. 

And of course there are the memories of my Mom at the piano and my Dad putting his watch on the pulpit before his sub-20-minute sermon at the evening service at Terrace Alliance. Or the night I was baptised at Sevenoaks after my younger (untaggable) brother Dave. Or the night Jeff joined Angie and I to play Sufjan's "That Was the Worst Christmas Ever" for the Christmas Eve service. And so on. 

I'm sure the list could go on. Sorry to be all sentimental. I don't know if today's name-tag was the last I'll wear at an Alliance church or not – and will pray it need not be so – but even if it is, and even if it came with some traumas, I am grateful for the joys and gifts received.

[Epilogue: Recommendation 9 was adopted, but Recommendation 15 was deferred for two years, leaving it unclear, for now, whether the escalated statements on gender and sexuality are required of church members]. 

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?”