Hypothesizing about the Church
Reading the report of the Reimagining the Church Commission
In a previous post, I considered the context in which the Reimagining the Church Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada is reporting. Here, I want to directly address the hypotheses offered in draft form by the commission.
Two points to begin. First, I love the idea of hypotheses! I just wrote a book of “theses” for Christians partly because I’ve become tired of all the rhetorical questions we ask in the church without always getting around to answers. Let’s start making assertions and then in the ensuing conversation discern our way forward. Call me a Hegelian, but thesis, antithesis, and synthesis still seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Second, there’s obviously a tension in a report of this length about how much context you give. Too much and the report is too long for anyone to read. Too short and we don’t have the benefit of seeing the group’s thinking. In general, I think that this report tends to the too-short side (for reasons I’ll explain in a minute) but what we are looking at now is not a final report and I imagine that report will have more context and thinking.
Onward, then, to the hypotheses themselves. I’ll presume you’ve read them. If not, take a moment to do so and then come back. I won’t treat them in order but instead offer some reflections.
The hypotheses cover a wide range of possible actions and proposals for the church. One relates to ending “independent editorial journalism funded by the General Synod.” This could presumably be accomplished by a vote of the General Synod next year zeroing out that budget line—though this is the hypothesis that is least clear when answering the question, “What is being proposed here?”
Another hypothesis speaks of “dismantl[ing] the racism and colonialism that are built into our governance structures in order to diversify participation.” This is necessary and laudable but the phrasing of the rhetoric suggests this would take significantly more action than simply a vote of General Synod. It likely requires more a shift in attitudes and approaches—though the actual proposal being made is for the Governance Working Group to find ways to enable participation regardless of factors like age, background, language, etc. So on this front at least, not all hypotheses are equal.
Timing matters for some hypotheses, and the timing isn’t all that great. Take the hypothesis that proposes examining returning to a model where the primate is also a diocesan bishop. Leaving aside the merits of the proposal, the actual proposal is to create a group to study and move forward with implementation, i.e. there is no proposal to make this change for the 2025 meeting of General Synod (nor could it be adopted in a single synod, as I understand). The trouble is that the 2025 General Synod is also when a new primate will be elected who, under the current canon, will need to resign their see. Such a primate could serve for nine, twelve, or more years, by which point the work of any group studying this proposal will likely be moot.
Some of these topics have been addressed already but it’s not clear the commission has taken account of this. This is true both of the hypothesis on the primacy (which was last studied by General Synod a bit more than a decade ago) as well as the hypothesis on independent editorial journalism. Just five years ago, in fact, General Synod concluded a wide-ranging study of the Anglican Journal and its future and concluded both that it was worth keeping the Anglican Journal and adopting a new oversight structure. (Indeed, the report specifically and in detail addressed the question of financing that the commission rather lightly glides over.) That structure rather spectacularly blew up in the church’s collective face over the #ACCToo movement, and General Synod 2023 regrettably sidestepped any evaluation or discussion of all of this. Just because I don’t see an indication in these documents that the commission has taken account of these past studies doesn’t mean they haven’t. I just hope they can give some due regard to this earlier material—and the hard work it represents—in their final report.
Are all the parts of the church actually talking to one another? To this question, the answer is almost certainly no—and not just in relation to this commission. Sometimes the contrast between what this commission is proposing and what is elsewhere happening in the church is quite striking. One hypothesis recommends re-visioning Church House through job-sharing, part-time staffing, and a move towards a fully remote and nationally dispersed workforce. Leaving aside the merits of remote work (and as someone in my office five days per week I remain to be convinced), this is already partly in place, as many staff don’t work in Toronto. Moreover, the General Synod has recently signed an agreement to move into new, shared office space with the Presbyterian Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada. Presumably, there is some kind of time commitment baked into that agreement (though I haven’t seen mention of it in any of the reporting on this), which would make “a move away from a central headquarters” a somewhat distant prospect without breaking this lease.
I would imagine the commission understands it is just one piece in a broader puzzle and recognize that there needs to be a coordinating function that takes these recommendations from the commission and integrates them with all the other work going on in the church. I don’t think that coordinating function can be performed by the meeting of General Synod itself. The work there is at too high of a level and the meeting is too short, which means synod tends to defer to the resolutions it is presented with. I think the coordinating body is likely the Council of General Synod (CoGS) to whom this commission will formally report in early 2025. God bless CoGS in their discernment about what to propose for action to General Synod 2025!
There’s an opportunity for significant ecumenical learning. For instance, the commission proposes removing one level of structure, either the General Synod or the Ecclesiastical Provinces. The United Church of Canada about five years ago went through a major restructuring that essentially eliminated one level of church governance. I hear all the time from people in the United Church about the positive and also negative effects of this. It would be worth bringing those comments out into the open.
Another ecumenical example comes from the United Reformed Church in England. When it was formed in 1971, they wrote into their founding documents something to the effect of, “We envision a day when this church will not exist.” At the time, this was an expression of a hope for further ecumenical reunion. But now, faced with the reality of declining membership, it is being interpreted as a spiritual challenge: what will it be like when the structures of the URC can no longer be supported? I think many Anglicans would find it challenging to think that the General Synod could no longer exist. But there were Anglicans in Canada long before the General Synod was formed (only in 1893) and, if the General Synod Office goes out of business (as the church’s CFO was recently warning), there will still be Anglicans. It’s not a bad idea to start thinking about that now, both pragmatically but also spiritually and theologically.
I’m quite open to the idea of restructuring governance structures in the church. (Indeed, elsewhere I’ve explained why restructuring the church is like flying the Millennium Falcon.) I think the place to begin, however, is with a side comment the commission makes in passing, “consideration should also be given to the possibility of amalgamating dioceses.” This is a much broader conversation and I know the inevitable pushback I get on this every time I raise it. It is also beyond the scope of the commission’s work (if understood to be focused on General Synod), so I won’t say more about it here, but probably the part of these hypotheses I most agreed with is: “to maintain the many levels of governance structures…is costly…in the time and energy that is given by bishops, clergy and lay leaders.”
I’ve deliberately not written about every hypothesis. For instance, the one about the Council of North attracted a lot of attention but I’m not competent to comment. I have my views about reducing travel and meeting costs for environmental and financial reasons but I also don’t want to minimize the importance of face-to-face meetings.
I’m going to have one more post in this series offering a couple of additional hypotheses of my own invention I wish the commission had included. But in conclusion I’ll just say the following:
There is wisdom to be learned from other church bodies that are going through change. Let’s be more deliberate about drawing on that wisdom, as well as the wisdom we have already accrued as a church through other recent studies and change. If the commission is doing this, let’s make it explicit.
Let’s think explicitly about timing and sequencing. What needs (and can be) done right now and what can (or needs to be) put off to a later time?
Let’s be clear that there needs to be some joined-up and strategic thinking about the church right now. No single commission can do all of the necessary thinking or cover all of the necessary ground. So the work of coordination and discerning concrete steps to take is immensely important right now.
As I say, one more post to come: if you want to get it right in your inbox, please make sure to subscribe. I don’t have enough time to write often on this newsletter so you’re inbox isn’t going to be overwhelmed, I promise!
The Rev. Canon Jesse Zink is principal of Montreal Dio, a theological college affiliated with McGill University, and canon theologian in the Diocese of Montreal.