General Synod – two governance issues
By Jason G. Antonio
This year’s General Synod has punted to 2025 two major governance motions that arose in 2019 — after delegates failed to change the marriage canon — including one recommendation that would neuter bishops’ voting powers.
On the final day of a long 2023 General Synod in Calgary, AB, the Anglican Church of Canada’s Chancellor David Jones and General Secretary Alan Perry presented two motions that would reduce the percentage required to pass motions and eliminate the need for delegates to approve at two consecutive synods changes to canons dealing with discipline, worship or doctrine.
After the marriage canon motion failed in 2019, delegates directed the Council of General Synod (COGS) to review the composition of the membership, rules of order, and procedures of General Synod and bring forward possible changes to the 2023 synod meeting.
Currently, a two-thirds majority — roughly 67 per cent — is required in each order of laity, clergy and bishops to amend the Declaration of Principles, constitution and canons dealing with discipline, doctrine or worship. The church implemented this stipulation in 1983.
This makes it possible for a small minority — one-third plus one — of any order to block a change, despite most of each order and more than two-thirds of the entire General Synod being in favour. Specifically, six per cent of the Synod in the Order of bishops, 12 per cent in the Order of clergy or 16 per cent in the Order of laity can veto a motion.
The change that Jones and Perry proposed — “to make General Synod more nimble,” their report said — would have reduced the voting requirement to 50 per cent in each order and two-thirds of all members of General Synod in favour.
Delegates spent almost an hour discussing the proposed changes to the voting requirements — and briefly touched on the second issue — before voting to “postpone” both matters to 2025.
‘Discrepancy’ in voting
Brenda Brochu, a lay delegate from Athabasca, said she had concerns about how delegates voted at the start of Synod against extending the term of Primate Linda Nichols. She noted that 146 people were in favour and 53 were opposed, yet the motion failed.
“In all my life, I have never been at a meeting where such a great discrepancy occurred,” she said. “At the opening of Synod, we were told that everyone in General Synod is equal, but that does not appear to be the case.”
Brochu then wondered whether the Anglican Church of Canada could grow when certain voices were “valued more” over others and how the church could transform the world when internal change “is so very difficult.”
Heavy responsibility
Rev. Noel Wygiera from Calgary explained that he recently celebrated 25 years as a clergyman, which made him reflect on his responsibilities and relationships with others and the church. It also made him realize that bishops are burdened with decision-making at diocesan and national levels.
“We set them apart to be shepherds of the flock. We set them apart to wisely make decisions for the good of the church,” he said. “While this might be undemocratic, it is our way.”
When Anglicans pray the Nicene Creed, they don’t profess belief in a democratic church, Wygiera added. While the number of bishops is small, that group bears a larger responsibility to uphold the church than do laity or clergy.
A just church
Finn Keesmaat-Walsh, a lay delegate from Toronto, said that while having orders is beautiful and each group plays a special role, she didn’t think that “a just church” would allow a small minority to defeat a motion.
Keesmaat-Walsh referred to the marriage canon failure in 2019, where 72.1 per cent of the house was in favour, but 14 bishops were opposed, and thus, the motion failed. She thought this change would make the Anglican Church more equitable.
“My voice as a lay youth delegate is just as important as (any bishop). Each one of our voices is just as important. Each one of our votes is just as important,” she added. “And I think that this will help that become the reality in how we make decisions.”
Upholding bishops’ leadership
In Primate Linda Nichols’ opening address, she spoke about upholding episcopal leadership, but this motion contradicts that message, said Hannah Wygiera, a lay delegate from Calgary.
“Our bishops — whom we elect — use their experiences, wisdom, knowledge and discernment, which are gifts to our dioceses and the national church,” she continued, reflecting on how often her bishop answers her questions and prays with her.
Wygiera referred to 1 Peter 5, which talks about the role of bishops being shepherds of God’s flock. She then noted that while not everyone agrees with their bishop, they should trust their leaders and respect that position.
An Indigenous perspective
During their synod this past May, indigenous delegates discussed everything but had no debates, and instead relied on a consensus decision-making model, said Amos Winter, from the Diocese of Mishamikoweesh. If there is disagreement, members give the issue to the bishop, who decides in consultation with the elders and senior clergy.
“Yes, we might disagree with our bishops sometimes, but they are put there by God,” he added. “They are given that ultimate call from the Most High, anointed and appointed by God to take that burden and carry the people to the promised land; that’s their ultimate goal.”
Wisdom is for everyone
When Anglicans are baptized, they are anointed with the sign of the cross, guaranteeing them as Christ’s own and making them full members of the church, said Bishop Shane Parker of Ottawa. He supported this change because he believed it respected the integrity of the Body of Christ, “the community of the baptized, where wisdom dwells.”
While the three orders have different viewpoints and levels of responsibility, he wasn’t convinced that wisdom was bestowed on one order over others during ordination or consecration. Instead, he thought God bestowed wisdom on everyone at baptism.
Wisdom through experience
What brings wisdom is experience, and bishops acquire plenty of experience travelling around their dioceses, visiting urban and rural parishes, and hearing many things from many people, said Rev. Alan Getty from Calgary. That acquired wisdom is one reason that order has a stronger voice.
“In a representative democracy, you are elected to represent your constituency, and might I suggest that the constituency of our bishops is much greater than that of either laity or clergy combined … ,” Getty continued.
“They speak with a voice greater than anyone else because they connect with so many more people … and can bring so much more experience, which I think gives them that wisdom.”
Besides bishops’ voices, Getty thought the motion eroded the Anglican Church’s apostolic identity.
Setting the bar high
Bishop David Greenwood of Athabasca said when making important decisions, he prayerfully discerns the healthiest course for his diocese and church by consulting with Jesus Christ, the Bible, early Church Fathers, and other bishops.
“In my mind, guarding (the faith) implies responsibility. In Christ, I am responsible for the health of the church and of my diocese. And everything I do is focused to it; it is my entire job … ,” he continued. “I falter and I fail and I try.”
The church’s forebears deliberately set the voting standards high to guard the faith, Greenwood said. He thought approving this motion meant delegates wanted to be free of constraints and to have less oversight and “presumptuous” guarding — and more advice and friendship. But, he pointed out, offering advice and friendship don’t carry the same weight of responsibility that a bishop is called to bear.
Reflecting democratic values
Nigel Shaw, with the Military Ordinariate, thought the motion was balanced and allowed the church to respond to a changing world. He believed every order should have its perspective and the ability, through a majority vote, to approve or reject a motion.
“The ability of bishops to provide that safeguarding of the faith is retained. If a majority of bishops feel that a motion is inappropriate, it will not pass,” he said, noting lowering the threshold makes it easier for a majority to approve or veto a vote.
“We are a democratic nation, and I don’t feel that it will hurt the church to embody a bit more democracy and equal voice in its orders,” Shaw added.
Governing the church’s speed
Rev. Rick Reed from Saskatchewan recalled riding go-carts as a youth and learning that a device called a “governor” prevented the machine from going too fast. He thought that the bishops played a similar role at General Synod.
“And our Anglican tradition has always held a special role and respect for our bishops even though we don’t always agree with them,” he said. “This proposal … diminishes this reality and takes away from their important calling in our church and … will change the church forever.”
Reed thought there should be more consensus on important issues, while he didn’t think Jesus wanted the Anglican Church to remove Synod’s “governor” device and make decisions with lower thresholds.
A call from God
Bishop Annie Ittoshat from the Arctic thought lowering the voting threshold would shut out minority voices beyond General Synod, which is why having a high bar protected the entire flock.
Ittoshat recalled God telling her in a dream to become a priest, which she understood as being responsible only to God since he called her to this vocation. Moreover, God gives her the authority of a bishop, but she knows she must not abuse that power.
“I walk along with my people. … I do not lord it over them, but I listen to what they want,” Ittoshat said, adding, “This (motion) will really diminish the voices that we have as bishops because there is a big number of laity and clergy.”
Other motions
Delegates also discussed and approved two motions that came from the floor.
One motion asked the House of Bishops to review the proportionality of its membership at General Synod and potentially recommend a way to apply this principle to themselves at future synods. Essentially, this could reduce the number of bishops at Synod, particularly suffragan members.
A second motion directed COGS to determine whether a consensus decision-making model might be a better option at General Synod than the current parliamentary-style voting method.
While the postponed governance motions may come back to the next General Synod, COGS could also make changes. Notably, the chair of the Governance Working Group, Chancellor David Jones, announced in Calgary that he will retire within the year.
General Synod meets next in London, ON in 2025. TAP
