Agonizing Anglicans

With other mainline Christian denominations the Anglican Church of Canada increasingly struggles to maintain ministry especially in rural settings though also in some urban centres. Simple truth: Fewer people invest energy and money in parish churches now, saving their financial commitments for special projects or secular organizations like the Sierra Club or Doctors Without Borders (it’s called donor-directed giving). It could be argued that today, individuals and families have less “surplus” funds for charitable investment; we are constantly encouraged to overextend our financial resources. The above notwithstanding, some still argue that the “church” remains sustainable; data, and my own experience, suggest otherwise.

In response to this reality a group within the Anglican Church of Canada has presented seven Hypotheses for Structural Change as a way to provoke conversation; it certainly will. I am unsure what groups within our church will work these through. As one  appointed to no committee, and without any influence beyond my blog, I thought I  would share some thoughts here.

1. It is time to dismantle the colonial foundations of the Council of the North to fully “Embrace mutual interdependence with the Indigenous church” (Sacred Circle). Representatives of General Synod, Sacred Circle, and the Council of the North will explore the goals, intent, limitations, processes and reporting policies around the collection and redistribution of financial and non-financial resources and recommend changes. The largest expenditure within the budget of General Synod is Council of the North. We need to ensure that this expense is accomplishing the work we need it to accomplish.

I hear this sort of idea a lot these days. Redistribute what we have differently,  and this will somehow make fewer resources go further. I ask, where has this actually worked? The costs and energy required to accomplish structural adjustment are significant. Secondly, why single out the Council of the North? Sure it is the largest part of our church’s work, because, hello, the north is vast, remote, difficult to service, and trained leadership challenging to develop.

I also would not equate the Council of the North with the emerging Indigenous Church. Indigenous parishes are everywhere; most clergy are non-stipendiary; and is some cases poorly supported. This Church however is emerging; they do not seek permission, just space to grow and evolve.

2. It is time to dismantle the racism and colonialism that is built into our governance structures in order to diversify participation. General Synod’s Governance Working Group will create ways to enable participation regardless of factors such as age, cultural background, language, family situation, employment status. Barriers to engagement and leadership opportunities are to be removed and proactive supports are to be developed.

Given my legal blindness and hearing impairment I note, again, the absence of disability from such lists—C’mon folks, you can do better. More generally, why is this invitation to participate in the life of our church not practice right now? What new ideas of procedures can any new committee suggest? As I see it, it’s a matter of attitude and discipline—either you engage as broad a constituency as possible at all levels at all times, or you might as well pack up and turn out the lights when you leave the room.

3. It is time to eliminate one level of structure—either General Synod or the Ecclesiastical Provinces. The Primate, with the Metropolitans in consultation with national and provincial councils, will consider the elimination of either the Ecclesiastical Provinces or General Synod and/or a restructuring of responsibilities and resources between the two levels in order to more effectively support dioceses. Consideration will also be given to the possibility of amalgamating dioceses or otherwise increasing inter-diocesan collaboration in administration and governance.

The United Church has just reconfigured itself, conflating conferences and presbyteries into regions. Experience on the ground here in the BC interior is mixed. Growing pains? Possibly.  In our Anglican world, while I have spent the best part of thirty years trying to refine many theological positions and scriptural approaches for myself, one matter I have made absolutely no progress on is the role of Provincial Synods. Here in Canada we have four, and here in BC-Yukon the primary role seems to be providing episcopal ministry to dioceses. There is some connection with the Sorrento Centre and Vancouver School of Theology; there is some work done around “ministry” but I have not seen anything else for some time. I work with a few folks on Social and Ecological justice matters but our work, while supported and welcomed, is entirely self-motivated and initiated. So as with (2) above, shifting responsibilities from a General Synod Forum to four Provinces seems unwieldy and not that strategic.

And as for amalgamating dioceses the conversation has popped up for me continually since 1990. Here in BC the distances are so vast it would be impossible to provide any realistic physical episcopal presence. So do you want a Diocese stretching from Old Crow to Merritt? I don’t think so.

4. It is time to examine returning to a model where the Primate is also a diocesan bishop. General Synod Officers will appoint a task force that gives serious consideration for the office of the primate to be held by a diocesan bishop, including the possibility for some of the responsibilities of the primate to be adapted and redistributed and for General Synod to provide financial support to that diocese for an assisting bishop.

Combining the role of Diocesan Bishop with a Primacy (first among equals or as chair of a house of bishops) is quite common elsewhere in the Communion. And it does seem to work well in smaller provinces which could, and at one time, did include Canada. The combination of the two would be the fastest and easiest cost-saving measure which may be timely. But wow, what a load to put on one person. Much global activity including travel would need to be shelved. I remember when the Archbishop of Kootenay became acting primate. For those of us on the ground, things changed, not always helpfully.

5. It is time to (further) reduce travel and meeting costs, both financial and environmental. General Synod Officers will initiate a thorough exploration of purpose, need, and cost recovery/cost-sharing for in-person meetings. This includes a review of House of Bishops Meetings and the travel expectations of the Primate and other General Synod staff.

The days of in-person meetings—given carbon emissions, high cost accommodation, transportation, and other factors—is going fast if not already gone. I remember the early days of electronic meetings—we spent half of our time getting someone’s audio to work. Things are greatly improved as technology has evolved and we have learned to effectively collaborate online. I spent time the other day stressing to my Anglican Communion Environmental Network colleagues (who should know better) that we simply cannot keep sending folks half way around the world for such meetings. Agreed, I learned so much in my years attending such meetings—but that was then and this is now. Now we know better.

6. It is time to re-vision Church House. General Synod Officers and Council, in consultation with national staff representatives will explore new models for the Office of the General Synod, including possibilities such as job-sharing, part-time staffing, and a move away from a central headquarters toward a fully remote and dispersed workforce with the necessary technical support.

Given my recent publishing experience, I know that some sort of physical centre will always be necessary given the space required for the Archives at least (unless some university will provide such space and support). I am curious to see how the unfolding combination of United Church, Presbyterian, and Anglican leadership facility sharing will unfold. I am unclear what a “fully remote and dispersed workforce would look like.” In Kamloops we had bunkers in local hills; is that what is suggested?

7. It is time to end independent editorial journalism funded by General Synod. While the General Synod does have an important role in creating and disseminating information and stories about the church, an editorially independent journalistic platform can no longer be a ministry of General Synod.

I am aware that editorial independence has been an issue for many in the House of Bishops. Personally, I think it is a good thing; disciplined, critical comment on the actions, reactions, ministries, and evangelical witness of our work is helpful. With Paul, we are often unaware of what we are doing, and why (Romans 7). I notice that the United Church has cast it’s national magazine Broadview (formerly The Observer) adrift to stand on its own merits and profitability. Were we to jettison The Journal I cannot believe that given the collapse of secular media here in BC and elsewhere such a niche product would be sustainable. Fewer and fewer dioceses retain a physical paper; so most of my church news is found online; it still requires professional journalistic staff to research, investigate and content.

As you will notice, my comments above are based on very personal experiences during lay and ordained ministries at multiple locations throughout Canada since 1982. I hope that somehow, yu will add your own. I hope this conversation moves beyond the existing councils of our church—it is hard to think and act creatively from within the organization one seeks to reform.

It took me a long time to learn to swim. It was not until my third set of lessons when I was about ten years old that I finally managed to let go of the side of the pool and swim into deep water. As a church we’re trying to let go which is great; we still lack the confidence however, the nerve to make the necessary journey, risk and all. In naming risk I also think of leadership, a topic I will write about in a few days. Watch this space. And please share, and comment.