In his presidential address to the General Synod the Archbishop of Armagh posed specific questions.
Archbishop Harper said:
It is my opinion that meetings of the General Synod, whether or not they gain the notoriety which will influence the wider world, should aim to inform, reform and stimulate the Church of Ireland. I assume that we are committed to the view that the mission of the Church of Ireland is largely exercised in and through the parishes and dioceses, but that it should be enabled, resourced and stimulated by the General Synod. I see little evidence that this is the case. I especially see little evidence of the passionate engagement that ought to reverberate around the Church to animate its life. How ironic that the only passion displayed in recent years emerged at this year’s Special Synod, where it was deployed in defence of the status quo. It is time, indeed, to wake up and smell the coffee. So here is what I think.
Tough decisions are now required about what we expect of General Synod and what we want Synod to achieve:
Is it merely a meeting to rubber stamp or, at best, mildly critique the reports before it?
Is it simply a parliamentary style assembly to consider legislation affecting the internal polity of the Church?
Is it a body that considers the work and recommendations of committees and then actually does something, advocating specific action in the light of the gospel?
Are major reports placed before us simply to defend historic rights and privileges or have we important things to say on social, educational and justice issues?
Or, are we here to address things that we are passionate about and to do something about them?
It seems to me that a very strong case can be made for separating the legislative and governance functions of the General Synod from consideration of committee reports that are (or ought to be) missional in character. We might do well to hold two one and a half day synods a year (say Friday to Saturday), dealing with legislation and governance at one and the mission of the Church in society at the other.
If legislation and governance arouse little passion, discussion of the mission of the Church in society surely should. I think we need to ask, “What are we passionate about? Is it evangelization? If so we have to do much more than merely tell people that they have to be saved because the Bible says so! Most people never read the Bible. Most probably do not accept its authority as greater than that of any other significant book. Most people probably believe that science disproves much if not most of it, and anyway are more interested in making a living and enjoying themselves, not associating church life with enjoyment!
Evangelism is, first and foremost, about making friends and standing alongside to serve them, not primarily to make them members but to make their lives richer. Conversion is the work of the Spirit, conversation and concern is the work of the Christian.
If we are passionate about evangelization then we have to be passionate about children, the family, social justice and education. Here is an abbreviated and random list, an incomplete illustration of the kind of issues you and I should care about and respond to if we are committed to sharing the love of God:
Are we passionate about child care? One of the major problems for women in the workplace is access to affordable child care or after school care. It is too expensive. What could the Church do? When did we last discuss the principles of the educational and social needs of the child: home circumstances, child poverty, child neglect, family stability? What have we to offer that may support and enhance the life chances of children? Are we ready to advocate increased taxation to provide for higher standards? Are we prepared to collaborate in providing services the state refuses or is incapable of providing? That surely is the acid test of our commitment, on Christ’s behalf, to the little children: to bring them into the centre rather than push them to the periphery.
Are we passionate about education? We invest huge amounts of time, money and energy in education at primary and secondary level, but what do we think about the role of education in reinforcing existing stereotypes and divisions in society? What must be done to address educational inequalities and the shortfall in educational aspiration, especially among young working class males? Are we concerned about the cost to the student of a university education or, indeed, about its quality and appropriateness in all circumstances?
Are we passionate about divisions in society: about sectarianism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, multiculturalism, integration and multi-faith dialogue? Of course we are! As a church we have a track record of attempting to address some of these difficult things. But worthy beginnings do not guarantee progress to completion.
Are we passionate about the environment, ecology, bio-diversity, climate change? What do we actually know about any of these things? How do we as a church, but more particularly as a synod of ordinary folk, engage with the responsibilities of stewardship, the ethics of ecology and the theology of creation?
When did we last discuss medical ethics, assisted pregnancy, organ donation, end of life issues?
Are we passionate about justice, the justice system, the cost of access to justice, prison regimes, sentencing policy, alternatives to custody, and mental health and substance abuse – serious issues among prison populations? I guess we are, but, as with other issues we do not seem able to muster the expertise, urgency or commitment to do more than we have always done, and thus we neither come alongside those affected nor advocate effectively for the things which should concern us all.
Everyone here, I suspect, is concerned about the economy, poverty, debt, and the consequences of these things for the lives and life chances of our fellow citizens. We are yet again haemorrhaging (that word again!) home grown talent and especially young people. Have we any wisdom to offer? Have we any expertise drawn from within the Church of Ireland to offer? Most importantly have we structures and mechanism which would help us to operate effectively, or is that someone else’s business? How can we pretend to get worked up about such things and have no strategy for response?
Are we structured, as a Church, to provide more than a chaplaincy service among assigned parishioners?
Ultimately any responses we make as a church to these or any other pressing issues have to be implemented not in synod but in the dioceses and parishes. The synod can often only ask the questions, raise consciences and sometimes propose solutions. It should not, however, look for the easy way out. The easy way out is to write things down in reports, mutter assent (or dissent) in Synod, and then return home after what may seem to outsiders to have been little more than an expensive annual re-union. Therefore I want to say some trenchant things about how we might experiment to make our proceedings more relevant and less inclined to be a remedy for insomnia.
The Constitution of the Church of Ireland, not a notably flexible document, provides within Standing Orders a device for the initiation of what might turn out to be the catharsis referred to by the Archdeacon of Tuam. Standing Orders 58-64 lay down procedures for conducting (behind closed doors) a “Consideration of the General State of the Church”. Thus we are not shackled in all respects by the dominance of a largely retrospective, formal agenda. Perhaps we need to see this measure not as an emergency provision but as an encouragement to take stock. So, in respect of the business of the General Synod, here goes:
1. Chairmanship. Is it necessary that the President of the Synod should also be wholly responsible for the chairmanship of the Synod. Yes he can hand over to a fellow bishop from time to time but why should we not provide for the creation of a panel of persons, including lay people, identified as endowed with the requisite skills and experience, who would chair, by prior arrangement, specific sessions of each year’s synod?
2. Let’s consider dividing the business of the General Synod between governance and mission and let’s consider separating those sessions accordingly.
3. We are here, in Synod, to hold one another, as well as the world, to account. Why not, then, open up conversation by providing time for Questions directed to reporting bodies? Questions submitted in advance might be answered by a spokesperson for the relevant body. Supplementary questions might follow. If such a device were adopted it would surely not be necessary to present and discuss every report contained in the Book of Reports every year.
4. Ought we not deliberately to set out to have a general discussion about the state of the Church on a regular basis, perhaps at the end of each triennium? Why not use our triennial structure?
5. I also favour discussion of committee reports on a triennial rota. This would save vast amounts of time in the preparation of detailed annual committee reports; it should save considerable space and therefore expense in publishing the Book of Reports each year; and it would enable a major discussion of major topics after mature and final consideration by the committee or commission concerned.
6. If such a device were to free up agenda time, might we also consider seeking from each diocese a verbal report and presentation to the General Synod articulating the issues that are regarded locally as urgent and relevant? With a bit of imagination there might be four such brief reports each year, again ordered on a rota basis, so that each diocese may make one presentation in each triennium. It would be an opportunity to share information, celebrate initiative and be better known and understood by one another. Better still, if the dioceses concerned each year were collaboratively to share perspectives and identify common concerns we might make better progress in sharing and bearing one another’s burdens.
7. Might it be possible to find agenda time for generic topics, not necessarily in response to written reports or set texts but introduced, perhaps, by someone whose passion is roused? What about “God in the inner city”, “God in the suburbs”, “God at the mart and farm gate”, “God in business and industry”, “God in government”, “God on the sports field”, “God in the armed forces”, “God behind bars”. How might we feel about giving the floor to people, from our dioceses or the wider community, who have expertise to share and who understand the issues? If we so choose they need not be Synod members, just persons who have something to say and insights to offer. Our task would be to reflect and respond and assist the Church of Ireland by doing so.
Please note, I have said nothing about changing diocesan boundaries, reducing the number of bishops, nor even about changing the numbers or pattern of representation at the General Synod. I am more interested in making the meetings of the General Synod more worthwhile, more energizing, more dynamic and better equipped to command appropriate attention. The General Synod could be a platform for what is best and most creative in the life of our church. It seems to have lost that capacity. I want us to remake it.
I have been pleading for ways to bring more passion into the life of the General Synod, but let me point out that the root meaning of the word passion is “suffering”. Nothing worthwhile is without cost. Are we prepared to make sacrifices in order to serve God and the people of Ireland? If the answer is “no”, so be it; but please, if the answer is even a guarded “yes”, don’t tell me what the problems are, tell me what the solutions are.
Let our membership and participation in the business of the General Synod be a sign not a sinecure in the wilderness of this world.
Let us embrace catharsis. Let us become a synod of “dunamis”, of power, of energy and of purpose.