There is much written about the different “gospel” that is now being proclaimed by the North American Anglican churches. Whether the accusation comes from bishops, priests, and lay people of the Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, or from provinces in the Global South (see this statement from the Primate of the Province of Southeast Asia as an example) they all proclaim that because Canada has approved blessings of same-gender unions and the U.S. has approved the election and consecration of a bishop in a long-term same-gender union that these churches now believe in and proclaim a different gospel. Never mind the North American churches’ presentations of how they wrestle with and understand Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as relating to their recent decisions.
How do they define the “Gospel?” What is the “Gospel?”
Here is how Dictionary.com defines “Gospel:”

Gospel
n 1: four books in the New Testament that tell the story of Christ’s life and teachings [syn: Gospel, Gospels, evangel] 2: an unquestionable truth; “his word was gospel” [syn: gospel truth] (3 has to do with music) 4: the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group [syn: religious doctrine, church doctrine, creed] 5: a doctrine that is believed to be of great importance; “Newton’s writings were gospel for those who followed”

How are these groups opposed to the U.S. and the Canadian Anglican churches defining Gospel?
1.) The four “gospels” – yes, but according to most who take an anti-homosexual perspective the Gospel is not simply the writings of the four “gospel” writers. There is a tendency to view all of scripture equally and all of it was dictated by God the Holy Spirit, it is all therefore “Gospel.” When these groups accuse North American Anglicans of proclaiming a different gospel, what they mean is that these churches are proclaiming interpretations of scripture that they do not agree with. “Gospel” to them is not simply the proclamation of reconciliation with God by Jesus Christ.
Many think of the Gospel as the words of Jesus detailed by the four writers in their “gospels.” We proclaim salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ, and we follow Jesus’ teachings, which are considered the “Gospel.” This is how I would define “Gospel.”
2.) Yes – I think we can all agree that the words of Jesus are the “Gospel.” Because the prohibitionist perspective on homosexuality and same-gender unions is in direct conflict with recent decisions by the North American churches, the forces in opposition claim that these churches have then accepted a “different gospel,” even though Jesus said nothing about this topic as recorded by the four gospel writers. Of course, they consider the entire canon of scripture to be the “Gospel” all together.
4.) Here is where their perspective finds its natural home, I believe. These groups accept a certain line of scriptural interpretive reasoning that presupposes an anti-gay bias. “The Gospel proclaims that homosexuality is an abomination, sin, contrary to the will of God, and anyone who is a homosexual is not fit to be in leadership of God’s Church.”
This is not “Gospel” from the very important teachings of Jesus (#5), or from the four gospel writers. Even when those who favor full inclusion of homosexuals give reasoned and sound rational for their interpretive perspective, it makes no difference. There can be no deviation to the anti-homosexual stance.
What the opponents of the North American decisions demand is a capitulation and strict adherence to their particular theological and interpretive beliefs – no others. This is not historic Anglicanism by any rational. It is, however, fundamentalism.
If what we say is the essence of the Gospel, the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels and perhaps what is expressed in the historic Creeds, then no, the North American churches are not proclaiming a different “Gospel.” They are simply proclaiming a different understanding of how God is working in the world today and a different interpretation and application of Scripture. It makes for great rhetoric, but not an honest dealing with the issues!

“In the Episcopal Church, our theology reveres Scripture as but one of the three sources of authority, co-equal with Reason and Tradition. We have always required clergy to be educated, and most of our seminaries have been open to historical and critical scholarship. Few priests believe that the bible is inspired literally word for word. As a result, few Episcopal parishes require you to hang up your mind when you enter; we are not beholden to a confessional statement or to a majesterium’s conclusions.”
This quote is from an essay written by Louis Crew for the book Combating Homophobia, edited by James Sears & Walter Williams (Columbia Univ. Press, 1997: 341-353).
My question is whether Scripture is really co-equal to Reason and Tradition in authority over the Church and Christians. Is Scripture THE authority, informed by Reason and Tradition, as we attempt to understand the intent of the original writers (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and how it all applies to us today? Is Reason an authority tamed by Scripture and Tradition? Is Tradition an authority mitigated by Scripture and Reason?
I grew up with Scripture being the absolute center. Traditions of man were always suspect. Reason, the thinking and philosophies of man, are always available for corruption. Yet, what is needed to understand Scripture? Tradition and Reason! The Church of Rome tends towards Tradition as its authority. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend towards Scripture as their authority. Unitarian/Universalist Christians tend towards Reason as their authority. Anglicans proclaim all three, co-equal, as our authorities. I accept that, but still tend toward Scripture when the rubber hits the road.