October 2005
Sacred Circle Proposal worthy of consideration By the Rt. Rev’d A. Burton PRINCE ALBERT - The recent Sacred Circle Conference in Pinawa, MB, has put the question of ecclesiastical native selfgovernment firmly on the agenda of the Anglican Church in Canada. The Sacred Circle, a national indigenous conference which takes place every three years, called for a renewed native Anglican Church with its own national bishop. The new Primate welcomed the proposal but recognized that its request for a single native bishop with “full authority and jurisdiction for aboriginal communities across the country,” was not achievable as requested, recognizing that such a proposal would need to be weighed by the 34 synods of the Church. It was not, in any event, legally possible before 2013 at the earliest. While the Conference was a gathering of interested people rather than a representative convocation, and was boycotted by a number of bishops and members of some of the most predominantly native dioceses in Canada, it nonetheless offered a sampling of opinion from native communities in many parts of Canada and must be taken seriously. Popular notions about the history of the Anglican mission among indigenous peoples are hampering evangelism among indigenous peoples today. There is a widespread misconception among young aboriginals that the Anglican Church was an enemy of indigenous culture and an agent of the Government of Canada in its efforts to isolate, divide, and assimilate native people. The residential school system has become a symbol of historical oppression, and as such is an evangelistic stumbling-block for our denomination. While substantial progress has been made in a number of dioceses to place the mission among aboriginal Anglicans in aboriginal hands -- Saskatchewan's native Suffragan Bishop and Indigenous Council being a notable example - there is still a widespread feeling of ambivalence among many aboriginal churchgoers that the Anglican Church in native communities is their own and not their own. Certainly there is an argument to be made in favor of speeding up and coordinating the ongoing transfer of responsibility for aboriginal mission to aboriginal decision-making bodies. Already a number of dioceses have developed their own synodical institutions and decision-making processes in harmony with aboriginal cultures. The Diocese of Keewatin, for example, has a unique regionally-based decision-making process that is worth examining. No doubt there are counterarguments as well, and these will certainly be put forward from within the aboriginal community itself. One reality that will need to be addressed is the failure of met-
ropolitan dioceses to connect with the steady stream of young indigenous Anglicans moving from the country to the city. The likely establishment of a national native bishop in the next year will provide a focus for debate and deliberation on these and other timely questions. The challenges facing the proposed national native bishop are great. This bishop must first build bridges between the General Synod's indigenous affairs committee - the Anglican Council of Indigenous Peoples - and some of the indigenous dioceses from which it is alienated. The ACIP has a deeply troubled relationship with aboriginal people in some regions of the country. In part the legitimacy of the ACIP is undermined by its structure: representation on the Council is by diocese rather than by congregation, and most Canadian dioceses have few, if any, indigenous congregations. Dioceses in which the majority of churchgoers are aboriginal have the same number of representatives as those in which only a handful of indigenous people are Anglican. Moreover, the perception that the agenda of the ACIP is driven by its theologically liberal staff and partners needs to be overcome, a perception which was not helped by the extraordinarily managed and structured process of the recent Sacred Circle. The crisis in the Anglican Communion and the issue of same-sex blessings were firmly kept off the fiveday agenda of the conference, though both matters are of deep concern to indigenous Anglicans: their voices on the matter should have been given opportunity for expression. If the proposal for native selfgovernment at the national level is to succeed, the ACIP will need to hand over its own power (and budget) to an elected indigenous assembly based on a proportional representation of active churchgoers. A fundamental question that will need to be addressed is whether a racially segregated Church can be justified within Christian theology. There are precedents for it (negatively in South Africa and positively in New Zealand) but the matter is far from settled theologically, and is contentious among indigenous people in Canada. There would need to be a realistic assessment of the cost of a new indigenous Church against the likely sources of revenue. A new national church structure would inevitably mean a new national church bureaucracy with a duplication of at least some services, and large expenses for national meetings and synods. Airfares from isolated communities across the North are not declining. On the other hand, financial support from the General Synod to the Northern Church has been
dropping steadily for twenty years, and the demographics of the Southern Church would suggest that a financial crisis there is looming. Certainly money could be taken from what remains of the Support Grant that the General Synod gives to the Council of the North but this could undermine aboriginal and other rural missions, many of which are already fragile owing to thirty years of systemic underfunding. In the last dozen years some dioceses have lost two-thirds of their stipendiary clergy. And those who remain are paid less in real terms than they were a quarter-century ago. There would be no point erecting a national native church bureaucracy by fatally undermining the congregations it was meant serve. At the recent Sacred Circle, a Maori Partner, Canon Hone Kaa, suggested that a new indigenous Church had a moral right to much of the endowments of the whole church. Would a national native synod lay claim to the endowments of urban dioceses such as Toronto where there are few Bp. Burton presents Margaret Sanderson indigenous congregations but many with long-lost certificates. See page 8. indigenous people? Would this be realistic? What about the endowments of the holding offices in the aboriginal church General Synod and the Anglican and vice versa? Could this be sustained Foundation? These are questions that can under the Charter of Rights? only be effectively resolved with extenLocal dioceses, many of which already sive consultation and consent. have forms of indigenous self-governPlainly the issue of financial steward- ment, will need to be involved in the ship in native communities needs to be designing of new structures, and local tackled. There has never been an effective indigenous congregations will need to be programme for aboriginal stewardship given effectual power in any decisions education despite the urgent need and gen- around constitutional structure. Any toperally abysmal level of Sunday giving in down process is bound to founder, particaboriginal congregations. One hopes the ularly as trust between the General Synod new national native bishop will make this and the most aboriginal of dioceses has a priority since native Anglicans will been strained by the issue of same-sex never have self-government as long as blessings. The principles involved here have non-native synods hold the purse strings. wide implications. For example, admitMany questions would need to be hamting the principle of parallel native jurismered out. Would local aboriginal diocediction would seriously undermine the ses overlap with the existing ones? Would argument that Episcopal jurisdiction is the existing dioceses be divided? Where inalienable within the same denominawould the authority of a local aboriginal tion. Could this debate then provide a way synod end and the authority of a national forward for the resolution of the crisis in synod begin? How would aboriginal and New Westminster and, more generally, in non-aboriginal dioceses relate to one another locally? Would they share build- the Anglican Communion? But if so, ings and resources and even bishops? would it be at the cost of the Church's historic catholicity? Would non-aboriginals be excluded from +Anthony Saskatchewan
Rural church conference - October 13-16 SASKATOON - The Canadian Rural Church Network is sponsoring a Harvest Conference October 13 to 16 at St. Peter's Abbey, Muenster. The theme of the conference is the “Faith Community as Catalyst for Rural Revitalization.” Anyone who is interested in finding ways to enhance the quality of life in rural communities is invited to attend. Information and registration details can be found at www.ruralchurchcanada.net. This is the inaugural meeting of the Canadian Rural Church Network which will facilitate ongoing dialogue among the rural church community. The conference will conclude with a celebration of World Food Day on October 16.