What follows are my social media posts from the last days of Alliance Canada's 2026 General Assembly, which I attended as a non-voting (and thus non-speaking) delegate in my status as a member of a local church. I went to bear witness to what occurred, after having been summarily stripped of my ordination for reasons that became more clear as the week wore on. As with all of my comments on ecclesial matters, while I believe we should be accountable for our in-house actions, I do want to ask onlookers to withhold judgment as much as possible, since this is commentary on a work in progress, and is not meant to defame or demean the individuals or the churches involved. I also ask those who are insiders to contact me if they feel there is anything here that is inaccurate or out of line. If convinced I will amend accordingly. More on that below. For the moment, here's a time capsule of my posts (with a few personal references omitted).
Thursday, June 11, 10:12 am
Today or tomorrow the Assembly of Alliance Canada will likely be asked to vote on some moral and theological questions that have far-reaching and unsettling consequences. There is a possibility that we could vote to make our positions on gender and sexuality into essential positions of Christian faith, and/or to disassociate with all churches and organizations who are affirming (or undecided), and/or to become formally anti-trans, and/or to make these into binding requirements not only for church workers but for all church members. (This also may not happen – so please withhold judgment on this and don't let me leave you with the conclusion that it has indeed been done.)
But it is deeply concerning to me on multiple levels: The lack of due process (theologically and procedurally and ecumenically). The lack of biblical and theological warrant, or at least discussion. The lack of clarity on practical consequences. And last but not least, the enforced lack of consideration of and for trans and gay people generally, and trans and gay Christians specifically. (Forgive my colloquial general labels here).
As I've said in multiple settings, I can live within a denomination that continues the practice of restricting themselves to heterosexual weddings and marriages – and (with apologies to my gay friends on this) I can even abide by my commitment to teach and endorse and advise this position within the church itself – just as long as we are not forced (a) to consider this a fundamental doctrine of the faith (on the left or the right, at least not until there has been a church council on that question), or (b) to disassociate from affirming or undecided or neutral churches and orgs, or (c) to disavow our trans or gay neighbours or Christian friends.
I absolutely will not do these things, and even the people in my denomination who remain conservative on these issues should refuse to have any part in these things as well.
So a lot is at stake for our little church today. Please pray for us. And please also withhold judgment on us. I am sharing things that are messy and complicated and still-in-process, and I do not mean to defame or cast aspersions on people who are still in process on these issues and may have good intentions to listen.
But I also want to humbly address the hugely encouraging comments on my messages about these events of late. I want to thank you for your kindness and encouragement. But I also want to clarify that I have not done as much as it may seem. Indeed, some of you will be hurt and disappointed by this. I have not advocated for the Alliance to become affirming. I have only advocated for us to hold an "ecumenical position" that allows us to make our own decisions about how we relate to gay people and couples outside of our churches. That's it. That's what I was directed to recant. And that's all that's actually at stake today. I am not a member of an affirming church, and I have never even said that I myself am affirming! I feel too much responsibility to my church to simply go rogue and take such a label for myself without an actual church deliberation about it. I do believe that since about 2012 I have been actively supportive and accepting and welcoming of gay neighbours and students and Christians from other churches, but I am not going to pretend I have done more than that.
I have not been there for you as much as you might think. In college I was slow to hear you out. In seminary I had other things to deal with. I am sorry it took me so long to love you enough to share your stories and theological arguments. But here we are now. I will not take part in a church that schisms from yours or forces me to disavow you. I have tried to stay in the church of my baptism and to work with it as long as it takes, but this will be the line in the sand that I do not cross with them. I am not seeking your respect or trying to centre myself or appear to be important or brave in some way.
If anything this past year has taught me how little I've done to really help my gay neighbours and friends, who have known their whole lives what I am only getting a little taste of now: Namely, the feeling of being not listened to by people who claim to love you, or the feeling of walking down a church hallway and not being sure if you are safe to share what you think or feel, and not even being sure if that person who just looked at you actually distrusts or even despises you. It's awful. I'm very sorry that I underestimated this feeling. The gay people who have been patient and gracious to stay in these spaces even while being talked about in the third person (often with disrespect) are witnesses to me of the self-giving love of Jesus, and I will never forget that. And the ones who left these spaces for one reason or another have my understanding and respect in that regard as well.
Sorry to keep doing this on here but I need to say this for my friends and church family. I realize by making it public I risk misunderstanding and unsolicited comments from strangers, but it's an unfortunate by-product of the way this awful website is set up, and I will just have to apologize in advance for how messy this is. I have to go and participate in these sessions now. So I may not even get to proofread this post, or even reply to comments for a day or two. So please have some grace for me and each other.
Friday, June 12, 9:24 am
Yesterday ... called sexuality a matter of orthodoxy. No one checked him on it. The Board has already recommended we escalate it to a fundamental tenet of the faith – which is somewhere between a mistake and a heresy, and is basically a call for schism – but the majority sought to leave this under their control. All of this is sadly not surprising to me, because the force of it has already been brought down on some of us – without the discussion they claim to want. What I do find surprising is the silence – with a few shining exceptions – from people with power who ought to know better. I want to believe that some are quietly voicing concerns in the dimly lit hallways where the cogwheels turn, but what now, when this comes at us on the floor? Will there have been any who spoke into the wheel? Or are these the moderates MLK was talking about from jail?
Later that day
Small update. They did it. In an aggressive fashion. There were a few cracks of light in the darkness; a few who stepped up to speak sense and offer a better way. Those who remain have work to do. Pray for them.
That evening
Fwiw, a ... prof and a longtime churchman DID check him on it, and I salute them (for whatever that's worth).
[There were others, and they know who they are, but these were the two I thought I should note on this occasion]
Saturday, June 13
It was pretty clear this week that almost nobody in Alliance Canada leadership cared for my co-edited book on Alliance theology and discernment – which includes a chapter distinguishing credal from denominational statements. But hey, it's never too late. Church members may want to get a hold of it, because changes are coming at you fast. Link in comments [and in this case, the sidebar].
[But I'm not looking to make a buck off a controversy, so if the book is unaffordable but you'd like to see the essay in question, let me know].
In the comments, a few minutes later:
I suppose it is also possible that people have thought about the difference [between credal and denominational statements] and just don't care.
[I digress]
Just to continue my opening comments: If anyone is going to chide me for airing my perspective online, I would like to remind them that I have been the victim of unaccountable hearsay, so if you are upset with me then you
had better be consistent about that. And bear in mind that I am commenting on active events, and will accountably engage with any corrections. I also want to highlight that I was dis-ordained – at potential cost to my reputation
and career – with no other way to address the spin that surrounded it. I was also openly criticized and misrepresented at previous Assemblies and given no chance to respond. I have been discreet about this for
over many months, and am even now only focusing on the issues at hand. And most importantly, please note that the denominational head office has itself previously broadcast its account of Assembly business –
including some misrepresented details from the deliberations that made some of us look like we were opposed to the Spirit
of God. So, the precedent for commenting on Assembly events has
been set, and the Call to Excellence privileges the people in power. I have stumbled into this mess, but I have a responsibility to the voiceless and vulnerable to be transparent about all this.
Above all, let me say that I am open to and desirous of reconciliation, and I will engage meaningful dialogue to that end.
No comments:
Post a Comment