Stephen Andrews welcomed people on behalf of FWM and the Worship Working Group, explaining that this introduction should have been delivered by The Rev. Dan Ash, the Working Group Co-ordinator, but that Dan was scheduled to have bypass surgery on 23 June. He introduced the FWM members in attendance as well as our partners, and expressed our gratitude to Thorneloe University and the Provost, Dr Don Thompson, for his kind hospitality in offering us the use of such an interesting space (the plenary sessions took place in a newly-constructed theatre). Having given a synopsis of General Synod motions concerning liturgy, and FWM’s mandate, Stephen then introduced FWM’s initiative in organising regional consultations: to listen to the Church before advising the General Synod of 2001 on the future of liturgy. He said that the idea of the Consultations grew out of a positive experience of discussion within FWM’s Worship Working Group. A draft of the weekend agenda was circulated. Stephen outlined the hoped for outcomes of the Consultation (many had already received copies of these in their Consultation mailing from Church House).

Members of the group, sitting in a circle, were invited to introduce themselves, and to say a little bit about where they came from and how they got here. Very quickly people began to share some of their experience of worship, and spoke frankly about some of their commitments, expectations and fears regarding worship in the church. The evening concluded with worship using a final draft of the FWM’s Night Prayers, and a reception in the MacGregor Room.

The day began with Morning Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. It included a Bible study (in triads) on the Journey to Emmaus story (Luke 24). The Gospel was read aloud three times. The first time, individuals listened for what words, ideas, or phrases stood out for them, and shared these with their triad. The second time, we listened for what Jesus (or, the Gospel) was saying to us. The third time we listened for what Jesus (the Gospel) was calling us to do.

Barbara then led us through an exercise of appreciative inquiry.

When we think about Anglican liturgy at its best, what comes to mind?

The intention is to identify what we value most about our worship and to work from our experienced strengths as we approach the topic of future directions.

1. In groups of eight, we identified 3 wishes (future positive expressions) for the future of Canadian Anglican worship based on these values, and then voted (as individuals) for the three wishes we personally thought were most important.

• where does our mission fit in?
• what do we mean by ‘the faith and tradition of the wider Church’?

In the afternoon, Barbara acknowledged the tension and lack of satisfaction of the group in regard to the statement and what was being asked of them, saying that this exercise has prepared us for the next step in our process. She then introduced Open Space Technology.

The theme of the Open Space, based on the statement drafted by the group in the morning was:

Over the next day and a half, discussion groups would meet together to address different aspects of the future of liturgy. Participants were invited to post notices of discussion topics that were important to them, along with the time and location of the group. Participants were then free to choose to take part in the discussion groups in which they were most interested.

Barbara outlined the four principles of Open Space:

1. Whoever comes is the right people
2. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
3. Whenever it starts is the right time
4. When it is over, it is over

The Law of Mobility was presented and explained – that if people found they were not contributing to or learning from the discussion they had joined, they were free to leave and look for a different group. Some different styles of engagement were described, such as the ‘bee’ who moves from group to group, cross-fertilising conversations, and the ‘butterfly’ who alights by the coffee pot, for instance, and may engage in conversation with whomever happens by.

Attached is a description of the discussion groups, and a record of some the comments they made on their reporting forms. These reports were typed by members of the discussion groups.

Names of Participants: Andrew Murray

Highlights of Discussion: How are various texts authorised? House of Bishops & General Synod the final authority, but broad consultation and expert panels used also. The C of E admit being "stuck" with 1662 BCP due to complexity of change process (Parliament). Here in Canada we could actually revise/add to. 1962 if the will is to have "one book". Do we have any revisions/additions apart from the supplementary Eucharistic Prayers and the "Services of the Word" actually in the works? Is anything being tested?

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: Get some work done immediately on new or revised texts (Liturgical Commission?) Then develop a process to test, evaluate and approve and authorise.

Resources Required: Resources must be committed to keep people in the pews informed throughout the process, as to why new rites are needed, who is developing them, and when they will be tested and authorised for use.

Names of Participants: Shaun Turner, Marion Jenkins, Veronica Roynan, Rhondda MacKay, Ann Smith, Mieke Van Geest, Erwin Oliver, Mark Loyal, Ernest McGraw (Note: 10 participants – 5 male, 5 female, 3 were First Nations people)

• Alongside changing liturgies is a change in power exercised in the church – formerly the priest was seen as all powerful in the parish – Bishop with unquestioned power in the Church.
• For those in positions of power (especially bishops) it is easier to use power to prevent something happening, rather than enabling something to move forward.
• Power can be either finite or infinite – we have tended to concentrate on finite power, exercised in tangible ways, rather than recognise and affirm the infinite possibilities of what might occur.
• Europeans want full power – to see the projected end result and all the details leading to it – First Nations people are more content to let things unfold and trust in the Spirit’s leading.
• People are excluded by being rendered invisible – their views treated as unimportant, others know better, etc.
• This is a gathering which models the value of each participant – shown in identifying participants by name and diocese only.
• We need to see power as a positive possibility, associated with the giftedness people have – the power of being empowered.
• There is a need to consciously set aside the presumptuous attitudes of the past, with their prejudices – and practice love for others.
• || Jesus is the model for the exercising of power.

• The need for unity needs to be balanced by exercising diversity
• Once people have been empowered and their input and ideas sought, these must be respected and honoured.
• There is a need to acknowledge abuses of power, apologise where mistakes have been made or wrongs perpetrated – and then move forward, working together with others.

Names of Participants: David Gould, Tim Vickery, Edward Swayze, Gloria Master, Don Thompson, Mark Curfoot-Mollington

• Not only the BCP’s, but even the BAS’s language offers grave problems nowadays for the unchurched and the uneducated. Some way needs to be found to provide forms which can reach such people
• The problem of gender-exclusivity is partly a matter of language, but it is partly a matter of gender-biased theology. Imagery, symbolism, metaphor are often male-dominated.
• There are inconsistencies of language in some basic elements (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer).
• Both the BCP and the BAS need to be revised.

• Both of the service books should be revised using the clearest and most comprehensible language possible. Inconsistencies in language should be corrected.
• Recommend using one version for a whole season before shifting to another.

Names of Participants: Peter Wall; Lynda Chantson; Rebekah Little; Bryan Bjerring; Erma Hill; Stephen Andrews

Highlights of Discussion:

• If we are a community founded upon a vision of radical equality, then we need to stop celebrating in a way that distinguishes between different classes of members: those that interrupt with acceptable noises and those that interrupt with unacceptable noises; those whose voices are to be heard and those whose voices are not to be heard; those who dress right and those who don’t; those who know the ropes and those who don’t
• If we are a community committed to empowering our members for ministry, then we must stop sticking people into pews and relegating them to thinking and doing what they are told.
• If we are a community of people called to hear the word and become responsible bearers of the word, then we must stop making people reliant upon authoritarian teaching.

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: We do need to continue revising our books; but we need just as much to develop a regular pattern of liturgical catechesis.

Name of Participants: Mark Curfoot-Mollington, Margo Linken, David Montgomery, Rhondda Mackay, Ed Swayze, Bryan Bjerring, Dalice Sim, John Hill, Pat Brown, John Hill

Highlights of Discussion: Some of the ways to teach metaphor are through surprise – as in contrasting biblical metaphors (the Lamb is a shepherd), or mixed metaphors; through mystery & wonder. Metaphorical thinking honours questions & uncertainty. Metaphor is not helpful when it is used as in speak rather then in educational or devotional tool. We need to use our symbols boldly; e.g. at funerals use earth, at the Eucharist use layering of imagery. We need to tell our stories as stories that contain an unfolding truth. Metaphors work best when they are understood through juxtaposition, context, intuition experience, rather than explanation. We can only speak about God I metaphorical terms. We have ritual for when words are not enough. We need to stop minimising our metaphors. Metaphors help people make the bridge from their own story to the biblical story. Buildings, space, body: all speak to our operating metaphors.

• We need further teaching & discussion on metaphor.
• We need to explore contemporary, scientific as well as Celtic, native "natural" metaphors for the Divine and the activity of the Divine.
• We need to get together and talk to each other about this more

• A resource on science & its metaphors to help preachers
• An internet connection so we can "chat" and research new metaphors to brighten and freshen older ones.

Names of Participants: John Hill, Bryan Bjerring, Marion Jenkins, David Montgomery, Mark Curfoot-Mollington, Peter Wall, Stephen Andrews, Erwin Oliver

• fear that orthodoxy is being challenged, that we haven’t been careful enough in re-appropriating the classic faith in our teaching
• they’ve been forced to use the BAS insensitively
• sense that everything changed very quickly (ordination of women, altars moved away from the wall, etc.) and that liturgical changes were the last straw
• had not been part of experimental changes previous to BAS, no liturgical catechesis by clergy
• some tried alternative services, and then came back to the BCP for various reasons (preference of language, kind of services, their backs were against the wall)
• the Prayer Book Society (PBS) had all the conservative issues foisted on them (by the way, the PBS in the US is not the same organisation)
• fear that alternative liturgies will go stale if published and become quickly outdated
• worst thing that happened to the PBS was letting picayune academics (and clergy) get hold of what was originally a lay movement
• there is increased respect both ways, however some recent publications (and the PBS Webster) have been doggedly reactionary
• if God is guiding us to use new language and theology, we’re asking the wrong questions: this is not an issue of preference
• BAS has increased lay participation, even in BCP parishes
• need as a church to recognise that we’re called to be prophetic in justice issues (e.g. language about God and people)

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: Service of reconciliation at 2001 General Synod (?)

Participants: Veronica Roynon, Rhonda MacKay, David Sinclair, Erma Hill, Glenn Miller, Andrew Murray, Ken Spear, Gloria Master

Future Action/Next Steps/ Recommendations: as above

Resources Required: as above

Highlights of Discussion:

• Expanding the "gateways" of spiritual experience not generally practised or wide-spread, e.g. Stations of the Cross, reverence of the saints, or of the Blessed Sacrament, feast days. Performing these rites with attention to local or cultural details, e.g. Feast of Pentecost in a rural, agricultural setting could include blessing of the fields. Congregation needs to trust its liturgical leader in trying new/uncommon rites. What works in one particular setting may not "click" in another which has a different history/ethos. Tailor rites as appropriate, e.g. the traditional fourteen Stations could become ten or four with different emphases; "cut and paste" components from variety of resources to form the new. Blending the "known" with the "unknown" may cast new , revealing light on the "known".
• Other rites might include: Blessing of Homes; Departure from a Parish; Blessing of Unions (same-sex or of those who do not marry); for marriage breakdown/separation/divorce

Future Action/Next Steps/ Recommendations: Expansion of resources which already exist, e.g. Book of Occasional Services, increase accessibility by placing on a website; compilation of a resource library; include a "cover page" which would including a synopsis, list materials required, etc.; improve training for clergy/lay leaders in liturgics. Presently there is a dearth of good books on liturgics--often a matter of sifting the mediocre to find the valuable; for print materials: prepare annotated prayer books providing non-pietistic, brief, helpful notes of theological/spiritual/historical significance (as most appropriate!); provide scriptural support.

Resources Required: either a diocese or national church (!?) to assume responsibility for maintaining a website (financial and staff resources); this responsibility could rotate amongst dioceses every two or three years; establish episcopal oversight; establish protocol for the removal of dated or inappropriate materials; most of these suggestions assume access to the web by clergy and others; ensure parishes are not excluded by lack of means to purchase computers and support related costs.

Names of Participants: Wall, Ann Smith, Dalice Sim, John Hill, David Sinclair, Erma Hill, Trudy Lebans, David Gould, Mark Curfoot-Mollington, Caleb Lawrence, Stephen Andrews, Ruth Roguska, Marion Jenkins, Bryan Bjerring, Andrew Murray, Ed Swayze, Glen Miller, Gloria Master

Highlights of Discussion: This was a very interesting and energetic discussion on the issue of how to deal with liturgical documents in the future. The leader had posed general questions such as: one book or two? printed format? CD-ROM format? on-line availability, etc. The group used this as its starting point. In point form,the major points follow:

- electronic availability of texts is largely dependent on copyright issues; it was noted that ECUSA has virtually all of their BCP on-line; much of the BAS/BCP could be put on-line, but some copyrights would need to be secured.
- if we had new liturgical texts,, what would they look like? what shape would they take?
- are we prepared as a church to endure another generation of pamphlet worship if we were to do something about revising both BCP and BAS?
- can the church afford to ‘do’ another book?
- ‘common prayer’ means common shape and common understanding, not identical words.
- how can we deal with the ‘authorised’ nature of the BCP if, as we suspect, its use is dwindling and will soon be of no real use in any comprehensive way. Does the authorisation simply get transferred to the BAS, or does there need to be some ‘child of BCP’?
- there was a consensus that while much of the BCP is of great value and needs to be retained, there are certain parts of it that we need to move beyond (baptismal rite, 39 articles, etc.)
- therefore, how do we deal with ‘parts’ of the BCP?
- how do we cope with liturgical change? progress? evolution? while working with such differentiated realities.
- the BCP is no longer an icon of our unity.
- we need to move forward with the BCP as our rudder rather than our anchor
- we need a eucharistic rite like ECUSA BCP rite 3
- if we were to go to a resource based liturgical system (no books, but a compendium or library of suitable resources, ideas, liturgies and shapes of liturgies), how do small, rural, isolated churches cope?
- some people are ‘invincibly ignorant’.
- we should use the already existing BOC book and format to add various liturgies to
- various parts of the church still would need a ‘book’ with important info such as what does it mean to be an Anglican, plus the best of the liturgies of both the BCP and the BAS
- one member pointed out that there is a great difference between the perspective on all of this by the clergy (presiders) and the laity (congregants) and that our discussions must bear both perspectives in mind.

- that the BAS ‘permission’ be renewed for at least another triennium
- that no change in status for the BCP be currently contemplated.
- that a recommendation go forward that the church develop a ‘library’ of approved and authorised liturgies, including the best of both BCP and BAS, suitably updated and modified, for publication, either in print or electronically, or both, as soon as is practicably possible - we realise at least three to five years)
- that no ‘new book’ (i.e. - combined BCP-BAS; new BCP; revised BAS) be pursued right now; that energies and resources go into the bullet above about a library.

Names of Participants: Rebekah Little, Erma Hill, Glen Miller, David Sinclair, David Gould, Gloria Master, Peter Wall, Veronica Roynon, Mieke Van Geest, Philip Rogers, Tim Vickery, Erwin Oliver, Ernest McGraw

• Sharing our experiences of music in worship:
• Music can repel people, especially youth, and especially if it’s done poorly.
• It’s difficult to please everyone, but is it necessary to please everyone at the same service?
• The church is never a concert hall, but we continue to wrestle with the tension between performance and excellence; also between performance and participation.
• Musical ability and experience really matters, but also leads to issues of control of the music.
• We tend to make the wrong assumptions about music in worship – this can be scary!
• Local culture can often shape the genre of music used in worship.
• There is room in the Anglican liturgy for liturgical dance and other forms of creative expression within every service.
• Rhythm and tempo!
• How long people stay in the same church can be a factor.

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations:

• Anglican worship should aim to BOTH reflect taste of congregation AND push congregational boundaries.
• Anglican worship should aim to BOTH elevate/stimulate the mind AND stir the heart.
• Anglican worship should be a family affair.
• Anglican congregations need to continue to be willing to try what people want to try, and involve as many people as possible in each service.

Future questions for discussion:

• Should the language of the music reflect or match the language of the liturgy?
• How can music speak to our culture?
• How can music help the healing process?
• How can music inspire forgiveness?

Resources Required: Logistical issues raised that influence music include: salary for musicians, instruments available, musicians available, size of congregation, rehearsals, hymnbooks, licensing, choirs and the kind of conductors/musical coaches a church has.

Names of Participants: Lynda Chantson, Don Thompson, Ruth Roguszka, Mark Loyal, Caleb Lawrence, Ann Smith, Tim Vickery, Shaun Turner, David Gould, Ralph Spence, Mieke Van Geest.

Highlights of Discussion: We discussed some of the needs and desires of youth (13-18) and we came up with several strategies to involve them in worship and church life in ways that are meaningful and relevant for them.

1) Don’t be afraid to talk openly about faith to youth. Most youth need and desire role models and assurances that they are normal. They are also interested in passion, drama and intensity and they are often looking for something to live for and paradoxically, something to die for.

2) Many youth need to (re)discover the basics of Christianity. There is a question of how much and what depth of Anglican theology youth need.

3) Youth need unconditional support, respect and freedom from their parish. They need a sense of ownership and responsibility in the liturgy and in the life of their Christian community.

These elements are all part of forming their identity, which is such a crucial aspect of teenage life.

• Facilitate open and honest discussions with teens in which the convictions of the Christian faith are balanced with the freedom of individual choice and with the underlying commitment to unconditional love.
• Encourage and affirm mentoring relationships with other Anglicans which help youth feel connected (e.g. Prayer Partners)
• Advocate longer confirmation programs (e.g. 2 yrs) where youth must examine their commitment more intensely.
• Involve youth in all aspects of the church and the wider Christian community (e.g. chalice bearers, greeters, mission work). This will help the Gospel come alive and will foster the passion and commitment youth need.

Resources Required: A parish genuinely receptive, committed and passionate about the presence and involvement of youth.

General housekeeping regarding scheduling of events. This was followed by reflection on group reports. Opportunity was given to add new discussion topics.

Reflections:

• that there is a need for a ‘Pocket Guide for Travelling Christians’, a slim, ready liturgy, and wondered whether this could be added to the discussion on a ‘book of common order’ (see report #18 following).
• that he had attended a conference on worship sponsored by the Baptist church, and the speaker extolled the virtues of Anglican liturgy (mostly the BAS).
• how should the church engage culture without compromising its integrity.
• that in their session on metaphor they had observed that some Christian symbols do not speak any longer in our culture, and asked if anybody had thought about this.
• that in North America, the gospel had been proclaimed by Europeans, but that some native peoples did not understand (e.g. ‘sheep’ in the Arctic) – so other symbols were used (eg. joke about a rabbit which had been ‘baptised’ as a fish.); that sometimes culture got confused with the gospel, and that we must work hard at separating the two.
• that each culture has its own way of believing in the gospel; that Christ told his disciples to go into the world preaching the gospel – not to make religion; that when religion becomes the centre of our endeavours division is the result (Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.); that there was a time when Roman Catholics and Anglicans were not welcome in each other’s communities, but today this has changed (his wife is a Roman Catholic); that communities now have ‘interdenominational relationships’, since no one religion is better than another; that Jesus said ‘In my Father’s house are many mansions . . .’ and the day when he will come back is getting close, the day of judgement; Have we loved our neighbour as ourselves?; that this is lacking today; that we seldom hear a minister talking about the Ten Commandments; (pulling out a heart-shaped rock from his pocket) that this was the way many people are today, hard-hearted, but love changes this; that Jesus will destroy what is made because it is too evil – weather, animals, water and people are sick from pollution; that this is because we worship the almighty dollar; that scientists had no business going to the moon; that God made everything; that we’re living in the last days, the days of the book of Revelation, and we need to teach our young people; that he works with them through the justice system, and warned that we will see more incidents like that which happened at Queen’s Park, more homeless people freezing to death; that the rich get richer, storing up earthly things, forgetting about God; ‘You are Christian people who have workshops like this, not to argue, but to go back and teach young people the Holy Scriptures. You are educated, understanding people – try to do what is right.’ He then prayed for us in Ojibway.
• that we need to expand our discussion and remember the world God has made; that she was and proposing (posting) a trip to the butterfly atrium tomorrow, saying that we should allow God to speak to us there.

We ended the session with Night Prayer.

Trinity Sunday morning, a Service of the Word was celebrated in the Thorneloe Chapel before breakfast. Following a brief housekeeping/check in session (including posting of additional discussion topics), groups met for discussion until lunch time.

Names of Participants: Don Thompson, Erma Hill

We are a church with a very central tradition of common prayer and common praise. Our history and our theology supports worship that has commonality when we gather, not just as a local community but in the wider context.

In addition to our agreed upon common texts, pieces of our liturgy are naturally raised up by the people. They embrace certain pieces imaginatively and these pieces, often quite brief, take on a power across the wider community of the church. ("The Peace", the "Glory to God" prayer after communion and the baptismal promises, were mentioned as examples.) These texts cannot be determined in advance. They arise naturally from the worshipping public.

As we move forward in an increasingly multi-faceted church, what is the value of the familiar, and how is that value balanced with the value of innovation? The future of the church will probably involve a common structure as the uniting element, but there will also be some place for common texts. Being Anglicans, there will likely be a norm in which innovation can flourish and this norm will provide the balance of the known/received and the innovative.

Names of Participants: Andrew Murray, Caleb Lawrence, Marion Jenkins, Pat Brown, John Hill, David Montgomery, Gordon Maitland, Shaun Turner, Mieke van Geest, Ernest McGraw, Gloria Master, Phil Rogers, David Sinclair, Ann Smith, Dalice Sim, Peter Wall

We are excited about making our worship more inclusive. We are striving to be more open to local cultures, aboriginal concerns, gender issues, seekers and youth. We want to modernise language, experiment with contemporary music and dance and drama in an effort to kick back the edges of the church which presently act as barriers between us and others. But, we should be equally excited about the core which binds us together. This has been described this weekend as "the faith and tradition" of the church, the "prayer book", the "apostles teaching, breaking of bread and prayers" and the "trinitarian faith." Rather than being contrary to the work of inclusion, strengthening this centre will furnish us with valuable criteria which will help us make choices about how to appropriately kick back the edges. "Strengthening the centre" is a better metaphor than "drawing boundary lines."

Historically, the BCP has defined liturgical space for the church and the theological core has been more or less open to individual definition. Lutherans in contrast have had a more clearly defined theological core and have been far freer about the liturgical expressions of it. Perhaps we need to become slightly more like them. If we are not careful, our present interest in liturgical diversity could cause us to lose our theological centre.

We have often confused the core with our British ethnicity. We can best discover our common core through cross cultural dialogue.

Our baptismal covenant articulates the common core of the faith. Yet this is not simply a series of propositional statements which we give intellectual assent to. Our core value is the orientation of our life towards Christ. Our modern western culture has conditioned us to seek rational definition. Yet it might also be said that our post-modern culture has conditioned us to have an aversion to rational theological definition. In contrast, our Anglican brothers and sisters from other cultures are sometimes far more comfortable nailing down theological definitions of our common core. We do not want to assume that being an Anglican Christian is simply a matter of agreeing with certain rational doctrines, yet we acknowledge that words are needed to describe the orientation of our life in the direction of the Christ.

The three legged stool (scripture, reason and tradition) was suggested as a possible common core. This was countered by the objection that the dynamic life of the Trinity is a far more basic core than Hooker’s epistemology. We participate in the trinitarian dance.

Eucharistic action was seen as the main way that we participate in the life of the Trinity.

"Inclusivity" is certainly a vital word for the Church today, yet this word needs to be used with precision and needs to be complemented by other words. While Christ includes all people, Christ does not include all beliefs and behaviours. Our understanding of inclusivity needs to be Christological rather than simply cultural. Our desire to kick out the edges needs to be motivated by the universal scope of Jesus’ embrace rather than by post-modern ideologies of tolerance. While our worship life needs to reflect the cultures that we find ourselves in, it also needs to critique them. The cross of Christ both affirms and judges all cultures. In many ways the Church has been guilty of mirroring the surrounding culture too much (western materialism, German nationalism, sexism, …) We need to be counter-cultural.

In some ways the way we offer rites of passage to the world has been far too nice and inclusive. We have accommodated ourselves too much to society’s expectations.

At times, diversity within the church can get nasty and even violent. Without a clear sense of our core we will have no means of resolving differences within the Christian community.

We need to strengthen Christian education. The catechumenate is one suggested way of inculcating the habits of the Christian life.

Alpha and Cursillo were suggested as processes through which the baptised can wrestle with the core teachings of the faith.

A "rule of life" and a catechism were also requested.

Moving beyond sermons to more interactive communication was suggested as a way to get the baptised more engaged with core issues.

Names of Participants: David Sinclair

We discussed some of the things that impede good contemporary liturgy. Buildings are great inhibitors: too much space, too little space, steps, sight lines, lack of open space, furniture. There is also a tendency on the part of people, even people new to the community, to quickly adapt a sense of the historicity of the building. Then change becomes difficult. There is an incongruity to modern music and liturgy in a building that is more suited to intimacy of relationship with God. We could not really decide which is the biggest problem: a huge building with a few people, or a tiny building with a lot of people. Both are problems with creating an environment that allows for good contemporary worship.

One of the things that might help is enabling the worship committee of the parish to discuss and make decisions about the use of space, and guiding the congregation in accepting the necessary changes to the building.

Architectural consultants

Names of Participants: David Gould, Rebekah Hill

• Sharing resources for music that draws youth. (Stoneleigh, Matt Redman, Robin Mark, Vineyard, Graham Kendrick, Mercy, Hillsongs, Taize, own compositions)
• Frustrations of music ministry
• Introducing new songs: with joy and passion that will be infectious!
• Excellence in music can be evocative & moving too, (but aim is NOT to be entertaining!)
• Music can be healing in some forms of service:

• Healing Services monthly, with oil and prayers, even by proxy.
• Memorial Services annually for grieving loss of loved ones – powerful ministry – tremendously helpful in facilitating the mourning, and bringing care and comfort.

• Music in charismatic worship – more praiseful, and gives room for God to move and work spontaneously in the congregation – e.g. between offertory and Eucharistic prayer with BAS.

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: The future for Anglican church music is hopeful, given the diversity of Canadians in culture and taste and experience.

Names of Participants: Pat Brown, Glen Miller, David Gould, Ed Swayze, Rebekah Little, Linda Chantson, Peter Wall, Bryan Bjerring, Rhondda MacKay, Phil Rogers

Highlights of Discussion: church physical spaces are often limiting in the use of many mediums; if we make these other mediums (drama, dance, etc.) more of a priority it will allow changes to be made to physical spaces--but, we must also be practical and adaptable and work with the space we have, creating drama for the available space, for example.

. . . there is no justification really for valuing one medium of expression in liturgy over another (e.g. word over movement).

. . . if we look at our current liturgies in use, it is important to recognise that the various senses/mediums are already in use: e.g. movement in kneeling, standing, turning to hear the Gospel; and that we can help people to make the leap to expanding the use of other mediums by building on what is already there (and recognising what is there)

. . . we should consider using electronic media also (videos, etc.) but without letting the dominance of that in our culture dictate our way of their use

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: we had an exciting time sharing ideas used in various services . . . the ideas are there but often the problems are: 1) access to the ideas and resources, and 2) knowing where and how to start, how to make things happen.

. . . suggested use of email address list, especially for those geographically isolated, to share and discuss ideas.

. . . FWM in their reports, could include ideas and resources lists for other than word-based mediums, whether in book lists, internet sites, conference information, etc.

Resources Required: It is very important that clergy and other worship leaders GET TO KNOW THEIR CONGREGATIONS AND THE GIFTS & TALENTS THEY HAVE --- and give them permission/space to use them in worship --- this is empowering and enabling

Names of Participants: Erwin Oliver, Ernest McGraw

Exodus was used as the model to describe the current situation. The victims cry out. God hears the cries of the oppressed and sends a liberator. The victims do battle with the oppressor. Eventually the oppressor releases the victims.

In the church the native people have to do it themselves. They need a "Moses" to lead them out of captivity, a leader from within. They cannot depend on the dominant culture to free them.. The reality is that the oppressor will not change. Another reality is that natives and non-natives have to live in the same space. Unlike the Israelites who left Egypt, the natives are not going anywhere. Therefore we must be in dialogue and in relationship with one another. Often the dialogue breaks down.

Historically, the rationale for the behaviour of the Europeans towards the Natives has been a distortion of the Great Commission. The dominant society has domesticated and castrated the gospel. This is now an issue of justice which must be addressed at all levels of the church.

We need to ask the native communities what they need to be included in new resources. For example, the use of incense and smudging are not universal practices. There may be a need for local/regional resources.

We need to develop collects, eucharistic prayers and other resources from FWM not just ACIP that reflect the evocative language and culture of the first nations parishes for use in the whole church. Examples would be use of Creator God, conservation of the earth, sacredness of the land, etc.

In terms of helping the dominant culture to understand what happens between oppressor and victim, it may be helpful to develop simulation games that place participants in the position of victim or oppressor.

Names of Participants: (12 participants)

Caleb Lawrence David Montgomery Dalice Sim

Andrew Murray Gordon Maitland Erma Hill

Don Thompson John Hill Veronica Roynon

Gloria Master Mark Curfoot-Mollington Shaun Turner

• AFFIRMED the concept of a printed "ordered form of common prayer" which would contain basic structure outlines of service formats, including - Daily Offices, Compline, Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, Funerals, etc.
• This would be a guide for the ordering of liturgical worship through a period of transition, outlining a norm for what we do.
• It is not to be an authorised Prayer Book, but an outline guide of the structure of various liturgical forms, containing prayers said in common, responses, etc.
• This would be a short term book (paperback?) designed for a limited time span. It would be designed for easy revision, responding to anticipated wide use and practise of worship, rather than through the design of liturgists.
• The publication would be not so much a compilation of full texts, as a convergence around a shape, which would honour the Prayer Book tradition as a guide to the future.

- a new prayer book or book of alternate services
- a devotional booklet for use in families or for private devotions.

There was discussion, but no consensus as to whether such a booklet should contain foundational historic documents (e.g. the 39 Articles, Solemn Declaration or Athanasian Creed)

Future Action/Next Steps/Recommendations: If agreed to by this Consultation, Faith, Worship and Ministry would be asked to prepare a design proposal for presentation to General Synod in 2001. Since what is proposed is a booklet outlining an Order for Common Prayer, and not a definitive Prayer Book, the simple assent of General Synod should suffice to allow such to be produced, published and made available in a relatively brief space of time.

Names of Participants: Margot Linken, Veronica Raynon, Bryan Bjerring, Trudy Lebans

Highlights of Discussion: We moved about in the atrium in quiet awe as we observed creatures emerging from cocoons, alighting on water, feeding on plants and fruits. We marvelled at God’s incredible works of art in these fragile, vulnerable creatures which live at best for 2 to 4 days. Afterwards we moved to a film on the Sudbury neutrino project (which has attracted an international conference of scientists to this city).

Reflections:

--that we need to feed our spirits with images from creation;
--that we must know what is happening in science;
--that often we work out of worldviews which science has left behind;
--that there is wonder in complexity;
--that God’s creation gives us incredible beauty and mystery.

--need to take seriously the world as God’s word,
--we have to keep informed in learnings in other disciplines

After lunch, we moved into a plenary session. Having circulated and read the Open Space reports, we ventured some comments on the general results.

• that we list some of the issues or opportunities which arose.
• That one matter which surfaced in various contexts was the perceived need for common liturgical structure.
• that all our texts need to be revised and made more inclusive, and the need for educational resources was often identified.
• who has the responsibility for producing these?
• that it may not be FWM – the future of the Committee is uncertain, and it is already overloaded with tasks.
• that in producing the BAS, task groups worked independently, and met together sometimes for seven or eight days (in pre-computer days!). Once these task groups were content with their product, they circulated their texts to diocesan D&Ws and Executives. They got lots of feedback. The prefaces in the BAS were prepared originally as briefs to the task groups, but the FWM found them so helpful they decided to include them in the book. Critique and revision went on for several years, and, despite some criticism to the contrary, it was a consultative process. The task groups found that they worked most efficiently by leaving the evenings free.
• what are the present diocesan doctrine and worship committees like? What are they working on?
• Ontario: membership was ‘self-selected’ (volunteers); they are trying to work out a mandate; they are given the job of organising synod services, but would rather do a survey of churches to find out what worship is like in the diocese; the committee is young.
• Toronto: Pat Brown is the chair. This committee reports directly to the bishop. Membership is appointed by the bishop on a demographic basis. Appointment is for two years, including a balance of lay and clergy, and they respond to requests made by the bishop. They are now working on a longitudinal study having to do with the marriage canon. They have produced a liturgy for induction and exorcism. They have a 36 hour meeting in the autumn, and then 5 additional meetings in the year. The five sub-committees meet as required.
• Niagara: they are being reconstituted under the Dean’s leadership. They are attending to liturgical and theological matters, and are trying to get proportional representation in terms of age and gender. The committee is appointed by the bishop. That the work of the national church is valued, and the constant cutback on staffing and resources are discouraging; that ‘It is too important to do what we are now doing and not have the ability to follow through.’
• Ottawa: their committee is looking for work! They wait for episcopal direction, and never seem to have enough lay representation (perhaps this has to do with when they meet). They always try to have a musician on the committee. In their diocese, blueprints for new and modified churches must get the approval of the doctrine and worship committee.
• Algoma: Don Thompson is the chair. The committee is set up through the diocesan synod, but appointed by the bishop. It meets 2-3 times a year. They have a full agenda: looking at evening services, new eucharistic prayers, the Virginia Report, The Gift of Authority, ablutions and the use of the common cup.
• Huron: appointed by and accountable to the bishop. It meets 4 times a year. They are in the process of looking at millennium resources: service of repentance; Virginia Report; induction liturgy. The committee is almost all clergy, with one theologian and staff person. They have beer and pizza for lunch, which may account for the high attendance.
• Moosonee: no committee working at the moment – this is due to small numbers and large distances. They are exploring the use of the internet.

Later in the afternoon we travelled to the Anishinabe Spiritual Centre, about an hour’s drive away in Espanola. The Anishinabe Centre was established by the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada for their work among Native People. We gathered in a beautiful and inspiring pine-and-cedar six-sided chapel, and were welcomed by Sister Dorothy. Ernest welcomed us too, saying that the chapel (the building of which was begun in 1980) and other parts of the Centre featured a lot of native craft work. The Centre is open to people of different races and denominations, and is regularly used marriage preparation facilitators, AA and band staffs.

Mark Loyal, and Erwin Oliver and Ernest McGraw took part in administering the Eucharist. In Mark’s sermon commemorating Aboriginal Day of Prayer, he asked ‘why we focus on native people?’ The answer is that native people have been lost or forgotten in our society. We are all lost without God, and so native people can show us how to be connected with God, especially through prayer. Scripture talks about reconciliation – we need to be reconciled between races and within races. How do we do this? By demonstrating sensitivity in our inclusion of the outsider, the native person. Mark challenged us to think about our own relationship with God on June 21, and to accept his work of reconciliation. As we stand in solidarity with native people in prayer, we must remember to pray for ourselves, for prayer unifies us in our diversity.

Our afternoon at the Centre concluded with supper on the balcony.

Strengthening the centre and kicking out the edges (31); A book of common order (27); Parish liturgical education (23); Liturgical documents (21); How can we make our liturgy more consistent with our mission? (16); The use of mediums (dance, drama, visual, etc.) other than spoken & sung word in the development of worship that is "evocative, engaging, joyful, real, authentic" (8); Hearing the voices of First Nations Peoples (5); The language of corporate worship (5); How to engage youth in worship (5); Power issues (4); Metaphors of space, body, language; the church as school for metaphorical thinking (4); The Church of England’s process for replacing the ASB (4); "Blended hymns and songs – taking the best and booting the rest: Music in Worship." (2); Why do people not want to change? What are they afraid of? (1); Glimpsing images of Eden at the Butterfly Gallery at Science North (1); Living the rites--and which ones--beyond the walls of the church (1); Memory (0); Enabling contemporary liturgy in a heritage building (0); Music in Worship, part 2 (0)

These topics were then consolidated under the five headings receiving the most votes. The remaining topics (all related to non-textual issues) were clustered together to form a sixth group. Six discussion groups were configured by delegates going to the group of their choice. These groups met to work further with the recommendations made in the report (integrating those of the other reports clustered with it) to identify and articulate a ‘hopeful possibility’ (goal), and what action was asked for from General Synod, FWM, the Ecclesiastical Province, the diocese and ourselves to move towards achieving these. Large newsprint report sheets which could be posted on the wall were provided with the following diagram:

HOPEFUL POSSIBILITY:

Next single step:
Province: $ - conference
Toronto D&W: Baptism
Huron D&W: Eucharist
Niagara D&W: Scripture (lectionary)
Ontario Worship: Other stuff
Etc.

Next single step:
(At every level) Create, Share, Edit, Revise, Learn, Empower, Challenge, Critique

Action Required:
FWM: explore feasibility and develop resolutions for General Synod;
GS: approve resolutions from FWM and designate working group; develop trial order (and send back to FWM)
FWM: develop resources for web sites from trial order
Province: web site
Diocese: web site
Me(us): agitate, support; resource: Prayer Book Society, Council of the North, Hoskin Group, D&Ws, House of Bishops

1. National Staff à House of Bishops

Next single step:
GS: educational resources (conferences, workshops)
FWM and Province: Resource provision (books, websites, people, etc.); bring ‘open space’ process to other levels (diocese, parish)
Diocese: talent banks
Me (us): promote this vision; ask ourselves and others, ‘what are your gifts?’

Next single step:
GS: Authorise a process for use of materials from other countries’ Anglican churches
FWM: 1) move to authorise a personal daily office resource, i.e. ‘Celebrating Common Prayer’; 2) develop a library/list of approved and authorised liturgies electronically and in print.
Discussion on the Consolidation Results

• Observations on the six reports:
• Sheet 3 & Sheet 6 go together (3 follows 6)
• all are ‘dynamic’ (the arrows are vectors)
• all are coherent/congruent with each other
• moving towards resources more than towards book(s)
• national role
• starting from grassroots, and not from the top
• common structure
• texts need revision – made more inclusive
• educational sources are needed
• BUT who does this work? It may not be FWM…

Bishop Caleb opened our concluding session with prayer. To ‘close the space’ each person around the circle was given opportunity to share with the group their learnings and new or renewed commitments from the weekend –"the story they are taking home".

Stories shared:

• a growing understanding and appreciation for the Province of Ontario through the recent set of meetings (reflecting on OPCOTE and Heads of Colleges as well as this consultation).
• the voices of native people can no longer be shut out; that we are all God’s children, and that native people who have been hurt in residential schools need to learn to forgive the Church and the Federal Government; that it’s a long, hard journey ahead, but Anglican believers will make it; that he still asked how our Church and the government could hurt God’s people?; that he had been freed from 50 years of resentment through his experience at the Minaki convocation; that those who don’t forgive will take that to their graves; that Jesus forgave, and so should we; that ‘when you have a problem, take it to the Creator – go to a place like we went to yesterday’; that he had had a drinking problem and was headed for destruction, but that he was healed at the retreat centre, and there pledged himself to help his people.
• that the issue in the native community is how the gospel and culture are distinct; that it was wonderful how this gathering is an example of God giving gifts – music, intellect; that we need to take care not to be co-opted by the world and notice that in the impoverished parts of the world spirituality is deeper; that we in Canada tend to read only the parts of the Gospels we can agree with, and neglect teaching on wealth and injustice; that Scripture is a sword and cuts but that ‘we have castrated the gospel’; that we worry that the Church will die with no young people, but God will not allow this to happen; that we need to be clear on the distinction between gospel and culture, and not try to make us like each other; that it is not the gospel of love to use coercion, as was used on the native culture; that only one white person showed up to the discussion on native issues; that ‘our voice has not been heard’; that dominant societies don’t change – Pharaoh didn’t change; the Hebrews had to change things; that Indians are on a journey to bring change; that we must do a critique of North American theology and get it back into the circle; ‘You people here have good hearts – but are you willing to die for what you believed as Christ did? Part of your calling is to speak out for native people. Rationalising arguments will not work on judgement day.’; that racial discrimination is subtle, but it is like leaving a child, a brown child, out of the family of God; that he didn’t intend to speak so long (and that he is usually noted as being a man of few words), but that the native voice had not been heard.
• that he came braced to be the odd-person-out, but was delighted to find that people are open and truthful, and concerned to seek commonalities.
• that we pray for the work of FWM.
• that it was an encouraging experience for a young postulant.
• that our culture wants to see the end from the beginning and all points in between; that we tend to be exclusive – but this process has been a gift.
• that we are very different, but that we have a core in Jesus and the gospel.
• that his will and resolve for change in the future is stronger.
• that he expected that we would argue about books, but now feels that the book wars are behind us, and that we’re thinking far more creatively.
• that he was delightfully surprised at the serious theological reflection, and reminded us that we could raise awareness and build common consensus through Liturgy Canada, and the Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission.

Others said that they found the experience challenging and stretching, and that these kinds of gatherings are helpful. With respect to the way aboriginal people have been treated in the past, it was asked, ‘what are we doing now that we are not seeing?’ The statement, ‘Questions themselves are holy’ was reaffirmed. We were asked to pray for the episcopal election in Huron on 9^th September. Thanks were expressed: to First Nations people for ‘keeping our feet to the fire’; to Barbara for facilitating the discussion; to Thorneloe University, and to Don Thompson and Shaun. Barbara thanked her teachers, and said that she looks forward to hearing how the conversation continues in dioceses and parishes.

The Consultation concluded with a service of Holy Eucharist held outside. Don Thompson had arranged to have a coal fire with broiling fish as the Gospel lection was the story from John 21. After lunch the participants departed.