Time and place – the hidden curriculum of synods.
General Synod evokes memories. Those fortunate enough to remember the old General Synod Hall may have recollections of a style of synod which was much more a debating chamber than some of the on-message, death by power-point presentations used in more recent years to guide members through the formal proposals of major reports.
One outstanding speech comes to mind. It was given by the then Archbishop of Dublin, Alan Buchanan. The major matter on which he was to speak was expected to be held in the morning session. The press took a gamble and the “embargoed until delivered” speech appeared word for word in the early afternoon editions of newspapers which members could obtain on their way back after lunch.
Alas for the journos, synod had exercised its mind and debated other legislation and knocked off course the Hon Secretaries schedule estimating times of business. Give the press their due, they stood like repentant altar boys along the press gallery high on the wall opposite the platform on which the House of Bishops was seated and from which Archbishop Alan would speak. He commenced by giving the lads in the gallery a most beatific smile, and then without consulting what was a four page script, delivered his speech verbatim. The speech was on a serious issue of the time and the archbishop, orator that he was, held the wrapt attention of the house.
The Synod Hall was not unaccustomed to a bit of feet stamping when members felt their hospitality and forbearance were being overly encroached upon by the occasional orator who persisted for a cause and used standing orders competently enough to permit him to interrupt proceedings. The standard of debate was higher in one respect than today. Speeches from the floor were made without close reading from carefully prepared scripts which outline the speaker’s pre-ordained stance and which evidence that the speaker has taken little notice of what was said by previous speakers or the overall thrust of the debate.
The decision was made, and not without due consideration of a number of factors including finance, to hold Dublin based synods at Christ Church Cathedral for the foreseeable future. The environment in which a meeting is held can affect business in a myriad of ways which may only emerge later. Basic matters like accessibility to the rostrum, can affect participation. Being unable to see the reaction of speeches upon the faces of other members is also a negative. The lay out of the old Synod Hall permitted that, and it is not an inconsiderable factor in human communication. But the ethos of a cathedral building for many folk could be at odds with the hard pressing of points. Is it possible that those who feel that ethos, do not pursue their argument as strongly as those who for the sake of the cause they espouse can, and do, ignore it?
There may be the customary complaints about how Synod does its business, and especially in the methodology of presenting and passing of Bills. Those who wish to short-circuit or supplant the system would do well to reflect that it has served the Church of Ireland well.
The legacy of dis-establishment included a Constitution which was drafted by some of the best legal minds of the Empire who were Dublin and Ireland based. There is both a balance of power and a check upon ill-considered change. There is a balance between the financial responsibilities of the trust placed in the Representative Body and the ministry and mission functions of the Synod, its Standing Committee, and Boards.
That matters of substance require a lead in time and re-consideration at successive synods has saved the Church of Ireland from making changes which attractive as they were at the time, on reconsideration in depth were found to need considerable amendment or indeed rejection. That professional assistance of the highest quality is available gratis from the extremely well-qualified Bills committee to those wishing to present a bill for consideration by synod is not often considered adequately by those who wish to produce substantial reform in the methodology of the judicatory of the church, or by those who simply wish to gripe and mainly because they have not made a half-serious attempt to come to terms with how the Church in synod does its business.
Perhaps consideration could be given to the production of a simple, modular, online course covering this area.
Who will lift the mantle of JLB Deane in making the necessary exercises of synod accessible to its members – lay and clergy alike?