Redeeming a mess of our own making.
The one thing the House of Bishops cannot be accused of at this year’s General Synod is media-management.
In terms of effective communication of the Church’s relevance to the wider public, this Synod was a disaster, beyond description and on a scale never before attained. The Church of Ireland’s ongoing contribution to Irish society was negated in the wider public’s perception by its concentration on an issue which has little traction in the world at large despite it being currently on the political radar screens in Westminster and the White House and mainly for reasons of political expedience.
The fact that that life can be busy and Easter came between the Cavan conference and the Synod does not excuse what can only be assessed as shoddiness in the preparation of the motions from the Houe of Bishops. The muddle on the first day of Synod and the ensuing angst it produced, could and should have been avoided by the proposer and seconder applying themselves to their basic responsibilities for their motion. The fact that they were acting on behalf of the House, is no excuse. Their responsibilities as proposer and seconder of the motion are fundamental and personal. Indeed, if two of the more senior bishops of the Church do not know the long-established procedures of the Synod, and especially when it involves doctrinal matters, what hope is there for other members?
On the heels of the debacle on Thursday, would it be far fetched to assume that there then ensued some form of crisis management in the House of Bishops which probably had to take place between the end of business on Thursday and the Eucharist in St Patrick’s? If so, then St Patrick’s was probably the right place for the House to be. Being at love and charity with each other, and the exchange of peace would no doubt help to heal the exiting and obvious divisions in the House which that day’s turn of events probably stoked.
Those in the media – newspapers and radio – who presented the discussion and divide as reflected in the votes in Synod as a clash between what they determined were liberals and evangelical, and who stated that it was a north/south divide, regrettably could readily justify their stance. The Church cannot complain. What was going to be an unavoidably difficult enough discussion was stoked by procedural incompetence, and in terms of the future, the resultant discussion and views stated, may well yet prove to be a morass rather than a fair way forward. Time will tell. It will test the Grace of God indeed.
Turning to the proposed working party several requirements are obvious. It will require members or consultants with specific accredited insights in areas such as genetics, scripture, and ethics to name but a few. Even in these cash-strapped days it should be provided with a dedicated professional support worker, again hopefully with accredited insights in a relevant area as well as administrative capabilities. Standing Committee has a major responsibility to ensure such staffing and representation. Above all else, the membership of this group should be determined on the basis of the competence in this area of each individual appointed.
Time is not of the essence. Those who think that there is widespread acceptance of the determination as shown by the votes in Synod, have not read or have chosen to turn a blind eye to the comments in the various discussion forums within the Church’s membership which have commented on the synod. One such example is carried on this site.
Beyond all this is the question of the exercise of power and growing alienation within the Church of Ireland. In many parts of this Church there is already enough alienation of people who chose not to join or associate with those organisations which meet under a narrower, self-defined, umbrella. That sense of alienation is being felt by some clergy. The indifference of those clergy who failed to return votes in respect of Standing Committee may be fed by this.
One thing for certain – there needs to be a greater adroitness in the House of Bishops whose corporate reputation was not enhanced by the poor start to the discussion at synod. Bishops and clergy need to give the lead in their outreach to those who chose to differ from them. And bishops who have taken a firm stance in the current debate need especially to be fair towards those clergy and especially within their own diocese who differ from them.
This debate came as Northern Ireland has to acknowledge in a Community Relations Week that there are more so wrongly named peace walls than ever before, and when the European union could readily fall apart or be severely damaged.
In an island and a world which is riven with divisions – racial, religious, political and economic – bishops, clergy and people are called and commanded by Jesus Christ to model reconciliation, and to practice reconciliation in the management of deeply held differences. If we cannot do this with justice and mercy to all involved, we have nothing to offer on behalf of the Great Reconciler who mediates between God and every single member of humanity – without exception. Either we in the Church are baptised into one body or we are not.
Houston McKelvey