General Synod 2007: In Plenary

At the local level. Multi-point yet part-time parishes appear at diocesan synods with more lay delegates than, say, the Cathedral of the diocese. The numbers don't reflect the thinness, or weakness of said "parish". The Synod gathering is loaded with old timers who are the mandated minimum delegation from their decimated congregation. In numbers they dominate the Synod, but not in intelligence nor familiarity with the current issues. Cheers
Harold

Harold Macdonald
Matlock MB

Why are there more active bishops now than there were in 1971 and why are there more members of Synod? Is it too simplistic to suggest that the number of Dioceses be reduced and also the number of Bishops and Synod members?

Lettie James
Montreal

I hope we did not pay too much for a consultant to tell us that a "sound and flexible" governance structure is the best way to go. This is somewhat akin to describing a good bridge as one that "carries the required load" without collapsing.

ABp Howard Clark's words form a good mission in and of themselves. If our mission (and the governance that supports it) does not serve only to forward the Great Commission we have missed our calling as Christians. Perhaps 'making disciples of all nations' should be the national, provincial and parish mission statement.

Our governance structure (at all levels) must be assessed against only that criterion - how does it support the local parish's efforts to bring the gospel to those in need.

M. Oliver
Edmonton

Should we be returning to more organic models and values for our governance structures? The Gospels and Epistles are full of organic metaphors e.g. I am the vine, you are the branches; we are all members one of another. Secular, hierarchical models do not seem to be serving us well.

Margaret Rodrigues
Chair, Planning & Development Board.
Diocese of Toronto.

I was sorry to be reminded that the Anglican Church of Canada has a 'Mission Statement'. Perhaps these general comments of inclusivity and purpose (undoubtedly well intentioned)are necessary if the Church sees itself as one more corporate structure in the 'modern' world. But no. Surely Matt. 28.18-20 is the very best statement of our mission, now and always.

Paul Stanwood,
Vancouver

It is refreshing to hear honest discussion of our decline in both numbers and influence. Perhaps it is time to become less "top-heavy" as Canon James suggested. Somehow we have to cut back. In this context, I was surprised to hear of the appointmen of a Bishop for Native affairs. Can we legitimately afford the expansion of the episcopacy?

Doug Dalton
Montreal

I was intrigued by the idea of an organic model rather than heirarchial. The term 'Vine and branch' has elements of both.

(1) Parishes of people are more organic than the buildings in which they worship. There are places where the ground is fertile, branches are growing and fruit is blossoming. There are others where the ground is tough, branches are cutting back and the plant's mission is largely discharged by being a living and breathing presence in the community. But all need to feel part of Jesus's mission in Canada.

(ii) Lay Representatives could be elected to General Synod by direct vote. Voters would be registered lay readers of the the Anglican Journal, providing the Journal database could cope with multiple readers at a single address. The organic element could be that the number of reps. would change as the total church membership changed. "Constituencies" could be single-member, or, in order to capture the diversity represented within our national church, multi-member. Dioceses could administer the elections, the Journal would get the messages out.

(iii) Clergy operate at many more points of mission than just the parish - and all need to be represented. The diocese is possibly the best gathering unit - so N clergy reps per diocese could be the way to go.

(iv) In Scouting here in Quebec we eliminated the whole layer of District administration a few years ago. Could we in the Anglican church eliminate the Metropolitan / Archdiocesan layers between the Diocese and the National (Archbishop) church? Consultants could advise on how many clergy per diocesan bishop is appropriate with whatever geographical and factors taken into account. Dioceses might merge to form a practical administrative unit (inter-diocese cooperation is already a fact of life here in Montreal). Merging dioceses would reduce the number of Bishops at General Synod.

Simon Hartropp
Pointe-Claire, Diocese of Montreal, QC

Major The Rev'd T.Meaker/Halifax NS.

I pray that any evolution in the discussion on goverance and Holy Church, begin with a clear doctrinal understanding that the Anglican Church's foundation for identity is statedly Catholic and Apostolic, and therefore forms part of the Catholic Concensus. This brings a degree of accountability and framework to any subsequent dialogue, and protects against drifting into a congregationist polity. I hope this opporunity enables the Anglican Church of Canada to rediscover it's catholicity, and thereby the means of unity and mission vitality.

Early in my career a senior official once told me that the right people will get the job done in spite of the organizational structure. It seems to me that there is always the danger that structures and organizations slowly assume more importance than the mission, and we wind up, instead of with guidance and leadership, bureaucracy.

Has each sector of our organization been examined:
(a) to determine whether its role and function is necessary and contributes to the larger mission of the national church; or whether its demise would, in fact, not detract from the fulfillment of our purpose; and
(b) to determine (if the mission is appropriate)whether the conduct of business within that sector is serving to fulfill its mission effectively, or whether it has become self-serving to guard its own turf?

Vines and branches make a nice metaphor, but we mustn't forget that branches occasionally need pruning for the vine to provide fruit. We must also not forget that with too much pruning the vine will wither and die.

Fred Stephens
Weyburn, Saskatchewan

Canon Howard E. Green,
I agree that the number of Dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada should be decreased. For example, why do we need three Dioceses in the civil province of Saskatchewan when the total population of the whole province is under a
million? There are parallel examples in other areas of the
country.
I think also,that instead of continually bemoaning the fact that the number of Anglicans in the Canadian Church is decreasing we need to do a lot more serious thinking
about why this is taking place. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many former Anglicans are now members of the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches across the country. I personally know of quite a few. We need to follow the lead of Dioceses like Niagara that have appointed a full-time Evangelism Officer for the Diocese and are unashamedly emphasizing Evangelism and naming it, instead of disguising it under some other innocuous name like Congregational Development or Social Justice, etc. as
important as these forms of outreach are.
Canon Howard E. Green,
Saskatoon

Thank you, Jim Boyles, for your clear presentation of the facts that necessitate another governance review. I am also grateful for the comments posted today. Together with my appreciation of the use of electronic communication technology I am curious about how these rapidly developing tools can/will be used to streamline and affect our governance structures. I suggest that Todd Maffin, a futurist and electronic communication guru (my words, not his) be consulted for his insights.

Donna C. Hunter, Retired Lay Canon
Diocese of Toronto, ON

As Ted Netton suggests, only the people of the Church can ensure that the Church meets its challenges effectively.
What are the resourses that the Church has to harness? I suggest that they are antiquated and need to be brought into the 21st. Century. Jesus was a contemporary of those among whom He lived; he spoke to a society 2000 years ago. Would not many of those who have dropped away from the Church consider that "old hat"?
Jesus is still among us, but we do not hear Him in 21st. Century terms. It is not reorganisation that will restore our numbers - it is a modern interpretation of Jesus's teachings. Let's bring our theology up-to-date.
Susan C. Huxford-Westall,O.N. Hamilton.

In this age of electronic communication and a highly mobile society,the church needs to let go of hierarchical and communication models inherited from the past.

Maybe it's time to rejig Diocesan borders, so that the work load is equally shared by this multiplicity of bishops we have (why do we have more active bishops in 2007 than we had in 1971 when we have at least one diocese less! What do they all do?). My own Diocese of Rupert's Land can be covered in a day's drive, while to the north and east we have the sprawling dioceses of Brandon and Keewatin, both areas are sparsely populated and it takes several days for the Bishop to get around to every church in the diocese. There are several dioceses in southern Ontario that are within a couple of hours drive of one another. Couldn't some of them be amalgamated?

I agree that it's time we dispensed with the middle hierachical level labelled Metropolitan. We don't need Metropolitans for the four Ecclesiastical Provinces. Heck, do we really need Ecclesiastical Provinces? Precisely what purpose do they serve? (I've often asked and no one has been able to tell me!)

I find the figures fascinating. According to the Canadian Census there were 2,543,000 Anglicans in Canada, yet in the same year there were only 1,109,000 on parish rolls. Does that mean that 1,434,000 Anglicans were not members of a parish in 1971? And did 467,145 Anglicans find something else to do on Sundays between 1971 and 1999 to account for the 42% decrease in parish membership (they can't all have gone over to the Pentecostals despite Canon Green's assertions). And if there were only 253,000 identifiable givers in 1969, does that mean that the other 856,000 on parish rolls in that period weren't contributing any of their financial resources to the church? At least the percentage of people giving in 1999 had risen over the percentage giving in 1969 (22.8% in '69; 28% in '99)!

What the church needs to do is some serious housecleaning. It should stop pussyfooting around and close parishes that are no longer viable, amalgamate dioceses, and get down to business and get serious about stewardship and evangelism.

Rene Jamieson
Lay person/General Synod Delegate
St. John's Cathedral, Diocese of Rupert's Land

One of the governance issues is the matter of General Synod itself, where Cost = Time x Numbers. The issues of size and representation affect the Numbers, but that is only part of the equation.

The idea that everyone has to do everything produces the maximum cost and is inefficient. One of the questions therefore must be "who should do what?"

It seems to me that there currently exist a number of different goals for our time together at GS:

1. To meet. (Social time, Lutherans, Partners)
2. To take counsel together on issues of mission and theology, which in practice means to set national priorities and expectations. (Motions, Elections)
3. To be educated. (Presentations)
4. To hold accountable those who act on our behalf. (Reports)

If we were to reduce the time spent in any or all of these areas we would save money. The question is whether the amount of time we spend on these various issues is necessary to fulfill our mission as a church.

If I were king and pope I would probably eliminate the educational agenda entirely and address that concern through means other than Synods (e.g. educational programs & materials, videos, the internet). I hate being treated like a captive audience anyway.

I would also want to take a good look at how we can make the accountability agenda more efficient. Can we hire an independent auditor-general (or team of them) to ensure that our policies have been implemented in good faith, and receive a brief report to that effect? This would be in addition to having our own access to the reports of individual committees should we desire it.

I think that motions are the essence of what makes a synod, so this should take priority.

I struggle with the business of "meeting". I know it's how we incarnate koinonia at that level of the church, but some of it seems more like a "nice-to-have" than a "need-to-have". Like, for example, a full evening to say farewell to our beloved Primate: a long, relaxed fete would be better done with the Church House staff rather than the entire body of General Synod, many of whom will never have met him.

And finally, the most egregious case: While I do love my Lutheran friends, I have some difficulty with the fact that we are spending a full day in fellowship with them while spending all of four hours on: governance, the St. Michael's report, and same-sex blessings (the Windsor report appears nowhere).

If these suggestions were implemented this time around we could probably have cut two days out of Synod and STILL have had more time to fully discuss the cluster of issues around same-sex relationships... which are, in all honesty, the only ones that might make this a "historic" synod. It would frankly have been better stewardship.

The Rev. Canon Chris Harwood-Jones
Clergy Delegate, Diocese of Kootenay