Principles of Canon Law and the Mind of the Anglican Communion

A guest post by Professor Mark Hill QC.

The Twittersphere has been much exercised in recent days by a passage in the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity, upon which those bishops who have chosen to attend this year’s Lambeth Conference in Canterbury will be invited to vote. The term ‘resolution’ is not used, but these Calls seem to be resolutions in all but name. The sentence which has animated particular concern, and in many quarters hurt, reads as follows:

“It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that same-gender marriage is not permissible.”

Somewhat disturbingly, Bishop Kevin Robertson, a member of the Human Dignity Call drafting group, has stated on social media:

“I never agreed to this Call in its current form. At no point in our meetings did we discuss the reaffirmation of Lambeth [1998 resolution] 1.10 at the Conference, and it never appeared in any of the early drafts of our work together. I can confidently say that the Human Dignity Call in its current form does not represent the mind of the drafting group, and I distance myself from the reaffirmation of Lambeth 1.10 in the strongest possible ways. I also unequivocally reject the phrase within the Call, ‘It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that same-gender marriage is not permissible’. This statement is simply not true.”

Those organizing the Lambeth Conference have carried out a reverse ferret in double quick time. A revised text will be prepared, and a third option to the electronic voting allowing participating bishops to indicate that ‘the Call does not speak for me’. The fact that it had originally been planned not to have a ‘no’ button, gives an insight into the mind of the organizers, neither inviting nor permitting dissent. The change can only be welcomed.

But this post is not about same-sex unions and their compatibility with Christian doctrine. Others are far better placed to write on that. Rather it seeks to expose the legal and ecclesiological illiteracy of the Call in general, and the above-quoted passage in particular. The bishops who attend this year’s Lambeth Conference cannot possibly make statements declaratory of the mind of the Anglican Communion. At best they can declare the majority mind of the 2022 Lambeth Conference but nothing more. They are not representatives of the dioceses or provinces from which they come. They attend in their personal capacities. They each speak for themselves and no one else.

The Lambeth Conference has no legislative competence. Its resolutions are expressive of the opinions of those present and voting, but have no binding force in any component Church unless and until expressly adopted by the competent law-making authority within that Church. Resolution 1.10 has never been incorporated by adoption into the canon law or other governing instruments of the Church of England. The attempt to affirm resolution 1.10 in the wording of the Human Dignity Call (which was kept secret from at least one member of its drafting group) has all the appearance of an attempt to weaponize it against devout and sincere gay and lesbian Christians.

Each Church of the Anglican Communion is autonomous, bound by its own canons, constitutions and other governing instruments. The Anglican Communion has no common mind, nor any institution with the legal competence to declare it. The Communion is held together by bonds of affection through four so-called instruments of communion (formerly instruments of unity), namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lambeth Conference.

Although the mind of the Anglican Communion cannot be measured or expressed, it can, however, be revealed through a comparative analysis of the laws of each legally autonomous Church. Canon law has been described as ‘applied ecclesiology’: the manner in which a church self-identifies is authoritatively declared by its laws. Establishing which particular laws are shared across all the Churches of the Communion allows common principles to be discerned and articulated. The laborious task of analyzing the laws of all such Churches was undertaken by the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Network and led to the launch at the Lambeth Conference 2008 of The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

A recent exercise carried out under the auspices of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University, with the participation of working groups in various parts of the Communion, revisited all the principles and produced a second edition which is to be launched on 5 August 2022 at this year’s Lambeth Conference. Significantly, the only matter on which it was unable to find a common principle concerned the nature and definition of marriage. Accordingly, the preamble to Part VI includes the following:

“The working groups operating under the auspices of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, as part of the revision process worldwide for this second iteration of the Principles, reported significant changes in some church laws with regard to whether two persons of the same sex may marry. As a result, there are now differences between the laws of the churches of the Communion on this point. Some churches provide only for marriage between one man and one woman. Some churches also provide for marriage between people of the same sex. Mindful of this difference, and of the principle of autonomy, it has not been possible to discern a common principle of canon law on who may marry whom.”

This is further expressed in the text of Principle 70 which declares that it was impossible to discern a common principle of canon law in this regard.

“As stated in the preamble to Part VI, the working groups operating under the auspices of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, as part of the revision process worldwide for this second iteration of the principles, reported significant changes in some church laws with regard to whether two persons of the same sex may marry. As a result, there are now differences between the laws of the churches of the Communion on this point. Some churches provide only for marriage between one man and one woman. Some churches also provide for marriage between people of the same sex.

Mindful of this difference, and of the principle of autonomy, it has not been possible to discern a common principle of canon law on who may marry whom.”

Since no common principle of canon law is discernible within the laws of each component Church in the Anglican Communion, no bishop, properly advised, can in conscience support a Call which purports to state that it is ‘the mind of the Anglican Communion’ that same-gender marriage is not permissible. It is a matter of indisputable fact that several Churches of the Anglican Communion have clearly and unambiguously revised their laws either to permit same-sex marriage, or to authorize liturgies of blessing for gay couples who have married or entered into civil unions, or have allowed individual dioceses to make such provision should they wish. The Churches in the USA, Canada, Scotland, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand provide various examples of such provision.

Sometimes the charism of unity is best displayed in recognizing the reality of the existence of two contradictory views.

Mark Hill

Cite this article as: Mark Hill, ” Principles of Canon Law and the Mind of the Anglican Communion” in Law & Religion UK, 26 July 2022.

COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE NOW CLOSED

30 thoughts on “Principles of Canon Law and the Mind of the Anglican Communion

  1. It seems to me that one may have the greatest love and respect for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and recognise their intimate relationships while still accepting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I suggest that it is a semantic issue and nothing more.

      • “Sometimes the charism of unity is best displayed in recognizing the reality of the existence of two contradictory views.”

        I suggest you read the first word of the last paragraph again.

        Semantic only if you are straight and have a wholly irrational fear of what other people do that has absolutely no bearing on what you do. Same-sex marriage would make no difference to your life or the lives of anyone, other than the God-blessed joy of union for those involved.

        • “Semantic only if you are straight and have a wholly irrational fear of what other people do …”

          Disproof by counter-example:

          I don’t describe myself as “straight”. I don’t have an irrational fear of what other people do. (I am concerned though when what other people do is harmful, for example when they teach unChristian doctrines in God’s church or try to corrupt little children by teaching those doctrines to them before they have learned not to believe everything any adult tries to teach them.)

          However, I do think that terminology is, by nature, semantic. I consider the semantics of terminology used to be rather important, and so do most of those who teach from the bible. Changing radically the meanings within a church setting of words (e.g. “marriage”) that are used extensively in scripture, changes the perceived meaning of scripture itself for future generations unschooled in what the words concerned used to mean when scripture was written, and what it meant to readers throughout most of the centuries so far during which scripture has been read and held in high regard.

          The faith should be defended.

          • If one wishes to retain a semantic distinction, may I suggest that those who wish to retain a doctrine of marriage based on complementarity and procreation use the term “matrimony” (with its derivation from “mater”)? In much of the world, “marriage” has come to mean a union of two equals without preconceived gender roles and not necessarily involving procreation. That accords with the definition under civil law in most countries.

            The Canadian church has two different marriage rites, BCP and BAS, which express two different theologies of marriage. The BCP is entitled “Holy Matrimony” and predominantly uses that term, while the BAS uses “marriage” exclusively.

          • @James Pratt

            The problem with your suggestion is that I cannot recall a single example of the word “matrimony” being used in English translations of the bible, in which the word “marriage” and words to do with marriage occur frequently, with their original meanings, which you would make obsolete, having us publish new English translations of the bible presumably, which use the word “matrimony”, or some phrase containing it. And for what good purpose?

    • Semantic only if you are straight and have a wholly irrational fear of what other people do that has absolutely no bearing on what you do. Same-sex marriage would make no difference to your life or the lives of anyone, other than the God-blessed joy of union for those involved.

        • Perhaps the irrational fear is evidenced by the way that this particular behaviour which is proscribed by scripture must not be allowed, but other behaviours proscribed by scripture are given a free pass with no complaints or comments.

          • Or other behaviours which are supported by scripture, eg slavery, are – quite properly – forbidden by secular law in most jurisdictions.

          • @Simon Dawson

            The main reason that some of the faithful are reminding the church that this particular behaviour is proscribed by scripture and must not be allowed, whilst other behaviours proscribed by scripture are (as you put it) “given a free pass with no complaints or comments” (though that is hardly how I’d put it), is that there is a campaign afoot to change the church’s teaching, to declare that, contrary to the apostle’s teaching and the doctrine of the whole church for centuries, this behaviour is not sinful after all.

            Your comment that this different response to a different situation evidences an “irrational fear”, is an example of the tongue-in-cheek meaning of my favourite proverb, “Cet animal est très méchant. Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.” (This animal is jolly naughty. When attached, it defends itself.)

  2. “Sometimes the charism of unity is best displayed in recognizing the reality of the existence of two contradictory views.”

    How can the recognition of contradictory “views” display unity?

    How can literal “views” contradict one another in the first place?

    Consider this pair of linked tweets:
    https://twitter.com/John_Allman/status/1196478705759137792?s=20&t=NvUUiikIIwudFXSE3btFqA

    An opinion about what the metaphorical mountain looks like from the other side, isn’t a “view”. Only what the part of the mountain nearest you looks like from your position is a view.

    If unity is only best displayed by recognising a conflict of contradictory doctrines (rather than “views”) “sometimes”, then at what other times might it be best to display unity in an alternative way, by refusing to recognise as Christian a doctrine that contradicts one which one believes onself, knowing that it has always been what Christian churches have taught, at least until very, very recently? I think we know that that moment to switch mode of displaying unity often comes, in the mind of those teaching a new doctrine that contradicts an old one. The “sometimes” ends as soon as they perceive that they have the upper hand. That is when, for them, the “other times” begin: when they begin to hope that the time has come when they’ll be able to get away with declaring orthodoxy to be heresy, and heresy to be orthodoxy.

    The toleration of LGBT doctrine in the church that contradicts the doctrine of traditional Christianity always carried a risk, of the future intolerance of traditional Christian teaching on the part of those who believe the new LGBT doctrine that contradicts Christian doctrine. The error hasn’t been so much a failure to test the new LGBT doctrine for compatibility with the old doctrines, as the dismal failure even to recognise that it was a new doctrine at all, and that it contradicted traditional Christian doctrine.

    • We’ve been through all this in the Church of Scotland, albeit with different laws and institutions of course. In one sense this is a debate about whether the ‘traditional’ view is – or still is – ‘right’. Your comment is more neutral than you may have intended. Just because a new expression of sincere belief is different from the traditional one doesn’t address whether the traditional one ever was – or still is – right. Or perhaps both have their place in a communion like mine where we treasure liberty of opinion on matters that do not enter into the substance (ie creedal or confessional) of the faith.

  3. At the risk of elucidating the obvious, there is something quite “results oriented” about this post. If you disavow “same sex [gender-if you will] relationships” then you will be “comfortable” with the Abp of Canterbury’s “call.” If you can see your way to permitting such relationships under principles set forth in the Bible, then you will do whatever it takes to have the “call” rejected. Any analysis of what a bishop can and cannot do in respect of binding his flock or his diocese, any sniping at it from someone purportedly involved in its drafting, any recitation of what canon law provides in whatever jurisdiction is part of the Anglican Communion is simply gilding a theological lily: you have a pretty image but the plant inside is dead. Though the Anglican Communion is not a “majority rule” organization, the plain fact is that the majority of bishops attending this year’s Lambeth, and the majority of Anglicans committed to their care, do not favor permitting same sex relationships to be cemented in their churches. And that is the “mind” of the Anglican Communion.

    • The majority isn’t the “mind”. And at one point the majority of the Anglican Communion thought colonialism was okay and (even now) the ordination of women was un-Biblical, but it’s never been expressed as “the mind” as such.

      • @Stephen Dowling

        “maybe they just make it up as they go along on a pragmatic basis”

        Of course. “Sometimes” (when one is still struggling to get a seat at the table), a false teacher who is trying secretly to introduce a divisive heresy will say that the best way of displaying the “charism of unity” is sometimes “recognizing the reality of the existence of two contradictory views”. Once he thinks he may already have the upper hand, he will start to say, equally pragmatically, that the correct way of displaying unity *now* lies in condemning and excommunicating those dinosaurs, those primitives, those “fundamentalists”, who haven’t yet abandoned the old orthodoxy in favour of his new, pet heresy which he has managed to make fashionable amongst demographics who consider themselves more modern and sophisticated.

  4. Thank you for this. The abolition of slavery, critique of colonialism, acceptance of birth control, and the ordination of female priests and bishops also grew out of minority positions in a similar fashion. I’m glad the structures of the church (in theory) give room for those minority positions to take hold and grow. I hope that we don’t lose them because the existence of LGBT Anglicans is too threatening for some.

    • The problem is that we are admonished in scripture to beware of false teachers, who clandestinely introduce divisive heresies, not to welcome them, cared for them, and treated them with respect, as per the paragraph 2.3 that Frank kindly quoted elsewhere amongst these comments.

      What is an “LGBT Anglican”, seen from the point of view of an unbeliever in LGBT dogma, but somebody who professes some of the time to believe Anglican doctrine, whilst believing and teaching LGBT doctrine that directly contradicts Anglican doctrine? The existence of such “LGBT Anglicans” actually *is* threatening, that’s the point.

      Any alternative definition you might propose of what the phrase “LGBT Anglican” means, is likely to presuppose the truth of the LGBT doctrines such as sexual orientation and gender identity that contradict traditional Anglican doctrines and those of other Christian orthodoxies, originally taught by Christ and His apostles and still affirmed today by the Holy Spirit.

  5. The more you argue you are right and others wrong the more sympathy I find I have with the others. What is really so wrong with conscientious and loving and long-lasting relationships between persons of the same sex being classed as marriage?

  6. The relevant passage has now been revised as follows:

    “2.3 Prejudice on the basis of gender or sexuality threatens human dignity. Given Anglican polity, and especially the autonomy of Provinces, there is disagreement and a plurality of views on the relationship between human dignity and human sexuality. Yet, we experience the safeguarding of dignity in deepening dialogue. It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ” and to be welcomed, cared for, and treated with respect (I.10, 1998). Many Provinces continue to affirm that same gender marriage is not permissible. Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998) states that the “legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions” cannot be advised. Other Provinces have blessed and welcomed same sex union/marriage after careful theological reflection and a process of reception. As Bishops we remain committed to listening and walking together to the maximum possible degree, despite our deep disagreement on these issues.”

    You can see the full text here: https://www.lambethconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lambeth-Calls-July-2022.pdf

    • I am glad that Professor Hill has reminded us that no Anglican bishop, or any conference of them, has the authority to declare the “mind” of the Anglican Communion as a whole on anything because the following statement certainly isn’t one with which I’d be able to say expressed my own mind on the present controversy (and for the best of reasons).

      “It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that ‘all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ and to be welcomed, cared for, and treated with respect.’ ”

  7. Pingback: Religion news 27 July 2022 - Religion Media Centre

  8. As a retired Episcopal priest and former chancellor (chief legal officer) of an American Episcopal diocese, I appreciate the clarity of this report. I am delighted to know that there is a working group of Anglican legalists undertaking to determine and monitor the common principles of canon law across the Communion. Thank you, Prof. Hill.

  9. Pingback: Opinion – 27 July 2022 | Thinking Anglicans

  10. A helpful paper, thank you; but has sufficient thought been given to Article XX? Is it not unlawful for Anglican provinces to “ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written”? Within the Godhead there is no contradiction, suggesting there is more work to be done interpreting Scripture. That “no common principle of canon law is discernible within the laws of each component Church in the Anglican Communion” does not take us very far, does it?

  11. Pingback: Bishops Divided on Revised Lambeth Calls

Leave a Reply to Marjory MacLean Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *