196
maintaining peace and unity was achieved, the created ecclesiastical contradictions which negated and minimized the policy’s potential in terms of developing a large parish’s capacity to overcome congregational differences.
Thus, in the short term, the poisition of outstation congregations may seem valuable and providing a win-win situation for those who wish to be part of a parish. In the long run, this policy could be seen as a recipe for the division of large parishes. Ultimately, the provisional findings of this thesis is that the policy reflects Diocesan failure to come to come up with a parish model that would promote congregational cohesion and dialogue across difference.
7.2 Theme One: Interdependence And Autonomy Of Outstation Congregations
197
We are together for spiritual development as part of the parish and the Diocese. We are in a team which is equal before the throne of God. It is to belong to the Body of Christ (Interview, AOR-40a)
My observation on this view is therefore, although outstation congregations are on the margins of the main parish centre, they are nonetheless perceived as belonging to the wider Anglican Communion. Because they do not receive resources from the Diocese, especially the annual vision given to parishes, the outstation congregation's interdependence on the main parish is compromised. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, the head of the Diocese of Natal remarked:
We are all involved in Gods mission; many parishes see outstations in terms of bringing in monies to the main parish centre. Outstation congregations are abused by the main parish centre even if we are in the same parish and under the umbrella of the Anglican Church (Interview, HOD-4).
My reflection on the above view is that within the Diocese of Natal as both the main and outstation congregations are viewed as one unit, but in that unity there exist an inequality within God’s Church. The outstation congregations are marginalized and do not enjoy that equality and independence. Furthermore, apart from the monetary contribution from outstation congregation, they noted that there is little training that is cascaded to the outstation congregations.
My observation is that however, not everyone held this Unitarian view of the church. For example one main parish leader noted that:
There is unity but not dominance belonging to an extended family (interview, MPC-4a)
This participant noted that there was a relationship of interdependence but from my research I found that their independence was only in mission, ministry and worship. This model thus frustrated the outstation congregations desire to grow and become a self- administering and self-sustaining parish. That unity would be best when it is in action. N.
198
Barney Pityana had this to say in this discourse that as he reflected on his own history within the church:
In 1957 I was confirmed by Archibald Howard Cullen, Bishop of Grahamstown in the little church at farming district of Kleinpoort, dedicated to St. George, one of the extensive outstation to St. Anne’s Church (Document, Port Elizabeth, 6 September 2014, p1).
My reflection is that unity was demonstrated even at outstation, at a farming district. This would send a clear message that in a large parish all congregations are equal. The impression given here was that they had to work together and fulfill their roles in mission, ministry and worship. Many were skeptical about the benefit of working together since they are on parallel terrains. Some of the leaders of the Diocese of Natal (HOD-4) observed that:
In terms of Canons and Acts of the Diocese, parish council, that is, mother Church and the branches, reach out to pastoral care. There also exist Chapel Council and Church wardens, not dependent on mother Church, but extended the Church council and is expected to develop outstations congregations. They have to be involved in God's mission (Interview, HOD-4a).
The various interpretation of the church policy about the status and role of outstation congregation became the central issue of contestation between outstation congregations and the main parish centre. The backward and forward movement of the Canons referred here was that main parish centre (mother Church) would reach out to the outstation congregations and vice versa. ”Outstation congregations feel discriminated by the main parish centre” (FG-44). They need to be developed on their own and become autonomous the bishop has to ensures that the rector supported the outstation congregations in their journey of development. A regional leader of the Diocese of Natal (AOR-4) had this to say:
Canonically, outstation congregations are part of the large parish. Main parish centre and outstation congregations retain their dependency.
They are to function as a team. Main parish centre does not regard
199
outstation congregations as part of the large parish. The outstation congregations’ role is minimal (Interview, AOR-4a)
My reflection on this view however, is that teachings from the Diocese of Natal main parish centre does not cascaded to the outstation congregations. The Canon stated categorically that, “The Incumbent licensed to any Pastoral Charge shall have the power, if the bishop approves, to establish Chapelries within his charge, where separate congregations assemble for Divine Worship, such Chapelries remaining under his own jurisdiction, saving all ordinary rights of the bishop” (ACSA, 1994:58(4); 65(1); 67(3):
68(8); 69)
The ongoing contestation rests within the fact that there was nothing said in the Canons about “pastoral Charges with many congregations” (1994:65(1). This was the context of the contestation in my study. The outstation congregations were mentioned only in passing in the Canon and they have no power except the Chapelries. The Canon made it clear that those outstation congregation that have gained status as Chapelries were set on a progressional process towards becoming a parish. Thus regular outstation congregations were at the mercy of the rector and parish council for recommendation of a change of status to be made to the Diocese.
The large parish receives guidance and procedures from the Diocese and these are not passed on to the outstation congregations. Nobody takes the trouble to conduct workshops on the Canons and Procedures on Pastoral Charge (HOD-4) which would mark the first step toward changing the congregation’s status. The contestations were becoming critical as some sentiments were expressed by main parish church leaders (MPC-4) as follows:
We are against being empowered on what to do in our outstation congregations, as if we were children (Interview, MPC-4a).
My reflection on this view is that this view was the cause of resistance from the alienated outstation congregations and not prepared to perform any role out from their congregations. All in all, the lack of adequate teaching about Canons in certain congregations was the cause of a call for a policy change related to the status of outstation congregations. The leader of the Diocese of Natal noted that: