The Line in the Sand: The Appellate Tribunal Opinion and the Future of the Anglican Church in Australia

I went to the recent GAFCON conference in Canberra because it was easy to get to and they had some good speakers lined up. But I also didn't really know what a political storm I was entering. I had no idea that the Southern Cross Dioceses was being formed at that conference. My experience at the conference could be a whole other post, but all this is to say that when we checked into the conference we were all given this book, and I am a sucker for free books.

This book was a little past its short use by date, as it was specifically written for everyone who attended the last Anglican General Synod. The General Synod usually meets every three years and gathers representatives from the 26 dioceses across Australia to make decisions, (or sometimes they are suggestions as some decisions at General Synod then need to be decided at a local Synod of that dioceses if they want to).

The last General Synod had a hairy decision to make in regard to blessing same-sex couples. In 2019 the Diocese of Wangaratta made a service that blessed same-sex marriages. The Diocese of Newcastle did something similar. Now priests in the Anglican church can make their own services to fit the needs of their people but the issue raised was if these services contradicted the broader Anglican teaching/doctrine. It should be clear that these services were not a marriage service, they weren't marrying same-sex couples, merely blessing a marriage that had taken place previously (or even on the same day eg, you get married by a celebrant and then have a priest's blessing afterwards).

To sort out if these services are "legal" in the Anglican church, they have a thing called the Appellate Tribunal that makes these kinds of decisions. This Tribunal is made up of three bishops and four lawyers who are elected in General Synod. They can stay elected till they are 75. In making a decision the Appellate Tribunal can also consult with two other committees, 1) the House of Bishops made up of the 23 diocese bishops (minus those on the Tribunal) and 2) the Board of Assessors who are made up of seven clergy (who are elected in General Synod).

In making this tricky decision the Appellate Tribunal did call on these two committees. Both the House of Bishops and the Board of Assessors said that these services were not in line with Anglican doctrine. However, when the Tribunal finally made a decision it was surprising to many to find that the Tribunal said there were no issues with these services. The General Synod was free to decide if they wanted to ratify these services and to make a statement blessing same-sex marriage. The Tribunal produced a Majority Opinion where five people on the Tribunal affirmed same-sex blessings. There was a Minority Opinion produced by one member, Ms Gillian Davidson, who argued that Anglican doctrine does not affirm same-sex blessing (and one bishop abstained from a decision as it took place in his diocese). The Minority Opinion was printed in whole as an Appendix at the back of this book.

This was the whole background noise of this book and it was given to everyone who was going to attend the General Synod to persuade them that this decision from the Appellate Tribunal was wrong. Throughout this book, it looked heavily at the Majory and Minority Opinion, going over the Biblical, legal, theological and pastoral implications of such a decision. As each chapter was written by a different people there was a fair bit of overlap in some of the chapters.

There was a devastating chapter written by Mark Thompson about the Majority Opinion's handling of the response from The Board of Assessors. This was because Mark was on that Board so helped write the answers to the four specific questions the Tribunal asked. the Board of Assessors' response is also printed in full in the Appendix of this book.

It seemed that one of the technical arguments used in the Majority Opinion was working out what was the doctrine of the Anglican church. Does this mean any doctrine of the church or a smaller set of more important teachings that the church holds? In a previous Appellate Tribunal, they quote a minority opinion from 1987 from Archbishop Rayner that says: 

"Doctrine" must therefore be understood in the Constitution as the Church's teaching on the faith which is necessary to salvation.

Now, what does that mean? Is the phrase "which is necessary to salvation" the main clause on what the church teaching is (ie doctrine is only that is which is about salvation), or is "which is necessary to salvation" a descriptor of the faith (ie doctrine is anything the church teaches about the faith, and the faith incidentally is the one true one needed for salvation)?

The Majority Opinion held to a very narrow view of what the doctrine of the church is, ie that which is necessary for salvation. And since the Tribunal didn't see same-sex marriage as an issue of salvation, therefore it is alright in line with Anglican teachings.

I found a few things interesting about leaning on this quote. One is, was there no clear definition of what doctrines of the Anglican church were until this minority opinion in 1987? Is there some other statement of belief, or constitution that outlines what doctrines the Anglican Church of Australia is to hold to? Before 1987 could the church agree on issues not relevant to salvation, but only afterwards are all other Tribunal doctrinal decisions around salvation?

The other interesting thing I found in the book was by Glenn Davies (who is now the new Bishop of The Southern Cross Diocese). He talked about how the issue of women being ordained as priests in the Anglican church has stretched internal Anglican relationships, but the issue of same-sex will break the fellowship because it is an issue of salvation. He also seems to agree with the Majority framework of thinking but puts same-sex marriage in a different category.

Personally, I find it hard to think about what is an issue of salvation and what isn't. After reading James, it seems that if your behaviour isn't in line with certain standards, your salvation is in play. If your epistemology or hermeneutics are inconsistent when addressing the Bible, what does it matter if it is about a salvation issue or a secondary issue? Of course, your method should leave room for ambiguity in texts that are hard to understand, but when there are clear statements that are easy to read you should go with a plain reading of the text.

I also don't know what the Miniorty Option was so long, I think this whole argument could have been a lot shorter and done in two quotes:

The Australian Anglican Constitution in its second paragraph says:

This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 it says:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The church doesn't bless drunkeness, or greed or the worship of other gods. Those who do, will not inherient the kingdom of God, which does sound like a salvation issue. We don't do services blessing those who worship Molech. Men who have sex with other men are also in this list and so this also seems to be something that shouldn't be blessed. But the good news is that those who Paul was writing to had once done those things, but not anymore. What we need are more churches made up of those who were drunkards and swindlers and had sex with those of the same gender. That would be going back to our roots and I am all for that.

In my mind, this is the whole sum of the argument: the Anglican Church holds to the Bible as the standard of containing all things necessary for salvation. The Bible says those who practice certain behaviours will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore the Anglican Church won't bless those practices.

Now was this book useful in its short life? At the General Synod, there are three houses that vote, the laity, clergy and bishops. The laity and clergy voted against the blessing service (63-47 laity, 70-39 clergy) but with the bishops, 12 voted in favour, 10 against and 2 abstained. Since all three houses didn't agree this means the Anglican Church isn't against blessing same-sex marriage. So it seems all it takes is 12 bishops and 3 lawyers for the Anglican Church of Australia to not affirm what the Bible already says.

This book is also free online, in case you want to deep dive into some of the mechanics of the Anglican Church.