'Seven Hypotheses' Stir Debate in Canadian Church

On Structure

It is time to eliminate one level of structure–either General Synod or the Ecclesiastical Provinces.

The Anglican Church of Canada comprises 30 dioceses, one ordinariate (for military chaplaincy), and one national pastoral jurisdiction (for Indigenous people). The 30 dioceses are organised into four ecclesiastical provinces.

Dioceses are self-governing entities. Diocesan synods generally meet annually and have responsibility for those aspects of church life that do not concern doctrine, discipline, or worship. These latter matters are the purview of the General Synod, which meets triennially and at other times delegates its powers to an elected body of clergy and laity, called the Council of General Synod, and to the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

“We have local governance in effect now,” said Archbishop David Edwards, Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada and Bishop of Fredericton. “Neither General nor Provincial Synods have the ability to impose very much on dioceses. Subsidiarity is the rule of the day. Only things like the Discipline Canon apply from General Synod down. An example from history is that the ordination of women was not able to be imposed.”

“Local parishes are already primarily and very largely supported by dioceses already,” said Archbishop Greg Kerr-Wilson, Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of the Northern Lights and Bishop of Calgary. “The General Synod level support comes by way of engagement with things like the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund, grants from Anglican Foundation, etc. But, as helpful and good as those things are, they are a small percentage of the week-to-week functioning of parishes. Any of us would argue that this is so, not only by design, but because local needs and expression are best dealt with locally. In some circles this would be called the principle of subsidiarity.”

The Rev. Dr. Dane Neufeld, rector of St. James, Calgary, and chairman of Communion Partners Canada, urges caution on any sweeping changes. Speaking for himself, he said:

“On one hand, synods are extremely expensive and in recent memory they have been very divisive, at least General Synod has. Gathering at great expense, to carry on bitter and divisive arguments, has only hastened our decline. Perhaps the frequency and format could be looked at, and the overall purpose. I still believe synods are important for the Church to gather and take counsel together, for people to get to know each other, and for real connections and bonds to be formed. In both my experiences at General Synod and Provincial Synod, I have formed important and lasting friendships, and this kind of connection is one of the great gifts of living together in communion.”

It is time to examine returning to a model where the primate is also a diocesan bishop.

Kerr-Wilson supports this proposal, for both ecclesiological and practical reasons. “I think it can be done, and it would also assist in the needed downsizing and reorganizing of General Synod — which, of course, means that I am also in favor of re-visioning Church House.”

Neufeld is not so sure. “Our country is so big, it is hard to imagine how it could work as it does in England, for example. On the other hand, there are plenty of large global organizations that operate remotely these days.”

Colonialism

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).

The Council of the North is a group of nine majority Indigenous jurisdictions in Canada’s sparsely populated and disadvantaged far north. It receives major financial support from the national church for their ministry, $2.15 million in 2023, about 20% of the national church budget.

Critics have pointed out that all nine of the commissioners making the recommendation are from southern dioceses. The commission also misrepresents the Council of the North by claiming that “the Council of the North’s membership is comprised of a majority of non-Indigenous bishops and does not include the National Indigenous Anglican Archbishop.”

“There are presently 15 Bishops in the Council of the North,” said Bishop David Lehmann, the council’s chairman. “Of the 15, seven are in fact Indigenous. Not a minority, but nearly half. The National Indigenous Anglican Archbishop is part of the council too. The commission’s statement is false.”

He added: “In the Council of the North, the funds are distributed using objective and subjective variables that are agreed upon by the members. The funds shared with the members enable ministry in each region. Funding is from two sources, the first being a block grant from the General Synod; the second being gifts from Anglicans across Canada. The former funds core ministry, while the latter is split to support training and ministry, technologies, and translation work. The majority of this diocesan-based ministry is to Indigenous peoples.

“The Anglican Church of Canada established the council as a response to the disparity that exists in north-south ministry. This disparity remains today. Travel across the north is more expensive, along with utilities, housing, and groceries. Amazon Prime does not exist for most parts of the Council, for example.”

“To suggest that bishops in the Council [of the North] are not capable of ensuring an Indigenous voice in budgeting, or worse, bishops are not capable of serving all people in their diocese, is rather inflammatory. Or is the Commission stating that all bishops are part of a colonial model and that episcopal ministry is to be ended in the Anglican Church of Canada?”

“Even regardless of who is or isn’t Indigenous, the fact is that all bishops are voted in by members of diocesan synods,” said the Rt. Rev. Joey Royal, Suffragan Bishop of the Arctic, who is Metis. “Is that not the definition of self-determination — letting lay people decide the future of the diocese? Even if the Arctic had all non-Indigenous bishops, the fact is they would have all been elected by a synod that is almost all Indigenous.”

Ministry guidance “should emerge from within these communities, and from extensive consultation and consideration of their needs and challenges,” Neufeld said. “I served for seven years in the Council of the North and some of that time was spent in Indigenous communities. There are so many incredible people and parishes in the North, I hope any proposed changes would honor and reflect their priorities, and what the Holy Spirit has been doing in their midst for a very long time.”

Reimagining into Oblivion

Edwards is concerned that “the hypotheses do not lead us towards mission and evangelism in the radical way we need.”

Neufeld agrees. “The restructuring of organizations often comes to nothing, if it just amounts to reshuffling the deck or rearranging the furniture. Most of the structures we have inherited can be forms of unity or division, faithfulness to Christ or forums to pursue our own agendas. Without a renewed commitment to the love of Jesus Christ at the center of all that we do, and a mission that is motivated by individuals and communities that have experienced this love, it is hard to imagine how any of this will amount to much.”

Royal concurs. “Isn’t it strange that the more the ACoC faces its own extinction, the more its leadership speaks in increasingly abstract terms? Last General Synod [2022], we approved five ‘transformational aspirations’ with very little understanding of what any of it is supposed to accomplish. I expect this latest initiative, like much that comes from Church House, means very little and will have very minimal impact.

“The main problem with the ACoC it that for decades it has been ‘reimagining’ itself into the image of the prevailing culture, and not the gospel. More ‘reimagining’ will only make it worse. All of this is a big distraction from the core task our Lord has given the Church in the Great Commission: to evangelize all nations, to baptize new converts, and teach them the Lord’s commandments. That the ACoC’s members are determined to do everything but that is proof that they’ve lost their way.”

Sue Careless is senior editor of The Anglican Planet and author of the series Discovering the Book of Common Prayer: A Hands-On Approach. She is based in Toronto.

‘Seven Hypotheses’ Stir Debate in Canadian Church
A map of the Council of the North | Anglican Church of Canada

By Sue Careless
THE LIVING CHURCH
September 19, 2024

The Anglican Church of Canada has seen precipitous decline in recent decades, and a church commission says it needs to change its structures “to enable a greater capacity within the church to proclaim the Gospel.”

“Reimagining the Church,” a report from the Primates’ Commission on Proclaiming the Gospel in the Twenty-First Century released in August, lays out seven “hypotheses” that mostly focus on colonialism, structure, and expenses, and commends them for churchwide discussion.

Though the report claims that “many of these hypotheses have been talked about informally for years,” those focused on structure and colonialism are proving controversial. Hypotheses appear in boldface, and quote verbatim from the commission’s report.