The new Archbishop of Armagh faces extensive and diverse challenges.
1. There is the challenge to enable the church to grow in response to indifference, a falling population and emigration. William Temple’s spiritual adage that the church is always only one generation away from extinction is a critique which should challenge the new incumbent of the See of Patrick, his leadership role within the House of Bishops and the Church at large. Thankfully and mercifully there is evidence that positive moves are being made in this area – witness the recent series of rural deanery meetings on vision in Connor and the forthcoming meeting on a similar theme in Dublin and Glendalough; the emphasis on ‘Back to Church Sunday’ at Clogher diocesan synod and the announcement by the Bishop of Tuam at his recent synod of a new outreach in worship at a location where there is no church building.
2. There is the challenge of maintaining and encouraging the Church of Ireland’s ethos and identity. Somehow this essential central emphasis has been muted in the Church of late. The need to be Anglican and Irish has not been given the prominence and respect which the Church’s history of missionary endeavour, worship and spirituality demonstrates. There are places within the Church where alas anyone seeking to have their soul shaped and nurtured by Anglican worship and values will be sadly disappointed. That this is also an indication of episcopal inability or indifference should lie heavily on the soul of anyone being the new incumbent of Patrick’s see and Church. The Church of Ireland has a specific missional context on this island. This needs to be effectively recognised and interpreted by drawing upon the riches of our tradition and their proven soul-shaping processes in corporate worship and personal devotion. Those who by their actions of commission or omission have contributed to this situation need to be challenged in the tradition of directness exemplified by Patrick himself.
At the heart of this dilemma is a failure to recognise the problems emanating from lack of agreement (i) on the status of baptism and its relationship to salvation, and (ii) the nature and valid use of scripture.
3. There is the challenge to enable the good government of the Church so that its resources are maximised for the mission and ministry of the church. Again, there is benefit to be gained from reflecting on William Temple’s view that the test of every minute occupied in meetings and of every penny spent, was whether or not it forwarded the kingdom of God.
The process of dis-establishment created for this Church a complimentary system of synodical government and of financial management. There have always been some who wish to dismantle or severely amend these legal instruments. However, there is a greater wisdom in recognising that they have stood the testing of time including massive challenges such as two world wars, a major rebuttal of Home Rule, a war of independence, the political partition of the island, the economic depression of the 30’ies, the entry into the European community at different times of both jurisdictions and over thirty years of civil violence in Northern Ireland.
The system of synodical government with its particular method of reform and legislative responsibility, coupled with the twin pillar of independent, charitable, financial management has served this Church well – even in these recent most difficult financial days. The C of I record of fiscal responsibility as undertaken by the Representative Body has been as good as, if not better than, similar bodies in other churches both in Ireland and Great Britain. That the new Archbishop takes up office within weeks of a new Chief Officer at the RB assuming that post, will hopefully mark the beginning of a necessarily creative partnership.
The increasing impact of accountability to Charity Commissioners will require significant training of vestries, diocesan council members and those appointed to central church committees. This will require resourcing and support – lying perhaps well beyond the trimmed down central administration staff of today. The introduction of a Clergy Code of Conduct needs to be accompanied with similar codes for select vestry members and others involved in the good governance of the church’s resources. This is a major unavoidable challenge to the new Archbishop and the central, diocesan and parochial administration levels. The responsibilities of his office and ministry cannot avoid effective concern for the good governance of the church in these different bodies due to their impact on the mission capabilities of the Church.
Once again, this is an area in which there has been identifiable constructive progress. The reform of RB committees and the improvements in the accessible presentation of financial reports is a basis of hope in further progress. Responsible, open accountability of the church’s finances is unavoidable. It is fundamentally a spiritual matter in which there is no room for dualism.
4. The challenge of effective communication needs recognition and effective resourcing. There is an unavoidable fact – the Church basically was created to communicate. Language, style and accessibility is required not just in communications which are directed towards individuals but also to those issues which the church encounters in the public place. Over the past decade the church’s approach to communication has become more fragmented. For example, there has been a retreat from channeling major diocesan news via a central press office. The responsibility for that rests with those defaulting dioceses. And in respect of the corporate image of the Church of Ireland, diocesan web sites (never mind parochial sites), display such a variety of approach, and in some cases unfortunately evidence of such neglect to update events, that they undercut the Church’s claim to be a body concerned with the good of society at large and to project its purpose as the body responsible for communicating the greatest message ever delivered to humankind. The ineffectiveness of the so-called Communications Committee is a particular situation in need of effective reform. Its mindset is not effectively attuned to the internet age with its myriad methods of social communication. It remains largely in thrawl to the eras of Caxton and phamleteering.
The “new archbishop” on top of his dutiful and unavoidable domestic diocesan responsibilities has a challenge to communicate which will require an astuteness of leadership if it is to be earthed within the Church’s structures in such a way as to enhance the mission capabilities of this Church of Ireland. If this is unattempted or meets with failure, the irrelevance of the church will increase. It will become more obvious that the Church is side-stepping the basic gospel imperative to communicate the good news to every individual and aspect of society. That is the basis on which a generous God will ultimately assess the stewardship of the new archbishop, his ministry and role – together with the Church (bishops, clergy and laity), which has afforded him this immense responsibility and opportunity, and which must support him in his particular ministry and response to his leadership.
Houston McKelvey