The structures and procedures of the Church of Ireland are meant to be as representative and as participative as possible, consonant with the Episcopal character and constitution of our church. I experienced that at my election as bishop. It is an honour and a privilege to have been entrusted with the responsibility of being bishop of this great and historic diocese and to be called upon to succeed such distinguished predecessors as Bishop James Moore and Bishop Sam Poyntz. I do not delude myself that I am, in myself, either worthy or equipped for such a task. Happily for the diocese and for me, the promise of God is that those whom He calls He also enables. That enabling is not reserved to a single individual. It is poured out in grace upon the whole diocesan team of clergy and lay people working together in the one ministry and mission of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. You and I are called, individually and collectively, to play our part in that quintessential and foundational Ministry Team, the Body of Christ.

The themes running through this Presidential Address may be identified in two issues that are inextricably related in the life of Church and Community. Those issues are participation and representation.

Participation and representation are issues that have arisen in connection with the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, not only this year but on several previous occasions. Many take the view that, as a result of the passage of time and movements of population, levels of representation at General Synod among the dioceses of the Church of Ireland are skewed and undemocratic. Proposals were brought forward to redress what was characterized as imbalance in order to give proportionately increased representation to large dioceses such as our own. Those proposals would have commanded greater credibility were it not for the fact that as a diocese we have failed, yet again, to receive sufficient nominations to fill our existing quota of lay representatives to the General Synod. Nominations to membership of other important diocesan committees are also uncomfortably low in number.

I believe that we have to recognize that a diocese such as Connor has a particular problem, especially in the matter of election to the House of Representatives of the General Synod. The problem is this: lay people in a diocese with many parishes and several hundred diocesan synodsmen know one another insufficiently well for there to be confidence in proposing names to fill the elected quotas. As a result there is again a shortfall. Such a situation is a challenge to us as a synod. Can we devise means of enhancing consultation and building wider acquaintanceship, perhaps through the Rural Deaneries, to enable a full take up of our General Synod quota? I believe that we can and I shall say more on this later in my address. However, we cannot justifiably complain of under-representation while we fail to return sufficient representatives to fill the existing quota.

There is another reality that we need to acknowledge. It should be more widely recognized throughout the Church that many people in paid employment find it unreasonably difficult to attend a Synod that meets from Tuesday to Thursday in an expensive city in the middle of May. That arrangement impacts severely upon the twin issues of participation and representation. Therefore, 1 remain convinced that the issue of reshaping the General Synod will have to be revisited. Personally, I favour a radical review which should not be rushed and should embrace consultation on the full range of proposals with all diocesan synods, Furthermore, that review should include consideration not only of levels of representation but also

• the possibility of dividing the agenda of General Synod to allow business to be taken, say, over two separate weekends rather than in one midweek meeting;
• the possibility of providing important bills and reports for consultation by diocesan synods before debate and resolution in the General Synod. This will require us to acknowledge that such a move, if undertaken, would have significant implications for the timing of diocesan synods including our own;
• the possibility of simplifying the existing, rather arcane, parliamentary procedures to render them more flexible and transparent;
• together with a review of the membership and work of the Standing Committee, which is the representative and executive arm of the General Synod when the Synod is in recess.

In making these remarks I risk being accused of seeking a repeat of the exercise reported to the General Synod by the Bishop of Cork when last the Synod met in Belfast. That report was mistakenly perceived as concentrating solely on reducing the size of the House of Representatives and as a result was not well received. I believe that these matters should be revisited, but in neither a hurried nor pressured way. Rather than caricaturing the issues negatively by talk of turkeys reluctant to vote for Christmas, we should be prepared to seek and to speak positively of tailoring a synodical structure, flexible and responsive to the needs of a confident Church of Ireland as it addresses the challenges of the 21st century.

The tailoring of solutions, or at least responses, to some of the challenges of the 21st century is what the ‘Building for Generations’ process in our diocese is intended to be about. I want to say something in this address about where we are in the process, about participation and representation, and about how we take things forward.

You will know from your reading of the Book of Reports that since Building for Generations was launched by Bishop James Moore in October 2000 we have begun to address the key issues identified in consultation with the Rural Deaneries and set out in our diocesan strategy:

• A Diocesan Training Council has been established and has begun its work of coordination and oversight of the training of clergy and lay people by conducting a diocese wide survey of training needs.
• A Communications Group has been set up which is working actively to improve and update the ways in which we, as a diocese, disseminate information, communicate with one another and tell our stories to an eager but ill informed world.
• A pilot scheme for providing better support for clergy was put in place by Bishop James. The results of the first year of operation of the pilot scheme are now under assessment and additional ways of providing support to clergy families are being considered.
• Under the heading of Family Support two initiatives have been implemented, both of them brought forward by the Mothers’ Union and pioneered in Connor Diocese. The first was a training course leading to a recognized qualification in the leadership of Parenting Groups. The second involved the establishment, under the auspices of a range of Church of Ireland and public agencies, of the Central Belfast Contact Centre which has been operating for the past nine months but will have its official opening by Mr Justice Gillen in twelve days time. I want particularly to commend the collaborative element, if you will the ‘multi-agency’ approach that has characterized the setting up of this the first Contact Centre established under Church of Ireland auspices. It confirms what I firmly believe, namely that collaboration brings results that could never be achieved on an ‘ourselves alone’ basis. Collaboration is one of the principles underpinning the ‘Building for Generations’ approach. Therefore I shall seek soon to meet with the Connor representatives of agencies like the Mothers’ Union, the Church of Ireland Men’s Society, the Protestant Orphan’s Society, the Board for Social Responsibility, the Commissioned Workers’ Society and others to explore ways of working collaboratively in areas such as Family Support.

I come now to address the issue of how we take forward the two remaining elements of our six point strategy, namely Ministry for Young People and Ministry for the Retired and Elderly. Furthermore, I want to link these remarks with the themes I identified earlier, participation and representation.

In my enthronement sermon in Lisburn Cathedral I suggested that nowadays there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution or model for Ministry. Pastoral care, worship, evangelization, mission and ministry are delivered locally in contexts that vary from locality to locality. We must, therefore, assess needs and design responses that take full account of local conditions. However, in all but the very largest and most populous parishes, the parochial unit is too small and lacks the essential ‘critical mass’ to undertake imaginative initiatives. The Rural Deanery, however, does constitute a unit and a structure that is small enough to be locality responsive but large enough to provide ‘critical mass’. Furthermore we discovered, when we used the Rural Deaneries as the consultation mechanism for drawing up the ‘Building for Generations’ strategy, that there is great strength in pooling resources of wisdom and experience. Therefore in seeking to design a way forward in Youth Ministry and Ministry for the Retired and Elderly I propose to return to the Rural Deaneries for inspiration.

What I propose, and indeed have already discussed with the Rural Deans, is that in the year beginning September 2002 each Rural Deanery will be invited to form a consultative group to study the local requirements in Youth Ministry. Each parish will be requested to nominate, along with the incumbent, one member of the Select Vestry, one person involved in ministry to young people and one representative of the young people themselves between the ages of 14 and 25. Thus teams of four from each parish will come together to consult in a Rural Deanery Youth Forum.

Each Youth Forum will be asked to meet over a period of a year to prepare a report on the specific priorities in youth ministry in their area. The diocese will provide a budget of one thousand pounds to each Rural Deanery to be used in whatever way its Youth Forum sees fit to assist them to complete the consultation exercise. The money might help in a variety of ways: for example, it might be deemed appropriate to conduct a properly designed survey; an away day might be considered a necessity; the group might want to see for itself examples of initiatives being tried elsewhere. Whatever the Rural Deanery Youth Forum itself deems appropriate the diocese will help to encourage and resource. All we ask is that the work be done thoroughly and swiftly with a view to reporting to the Diocesan Council by the end of the twelve month period or as soon thereafter as practicable. A member of the current Connor Youth Council will be seconded to each Rural Deanery Forum as a resource and link person and I shall ask the Diocesan Council to extend the remit of the existing members of the Connor Youth Council in order to maintain continuity.

I propose a similar exercise, but with different personnel, in year 2, that is 2003 - 2004. The task during that period will be to address the issue of Ministry for the Retired and Elderly. Again, funding will be made available to resource that exercise.

As a result of such consultation processes I look forward to the following results:

1. The identification of solutions tailored to local conditions and local expectations;
2. Interaction between members of different parishes with the potential to share insights, build fellowship and extend mutual confidence;
3. In the case of the Youth Ministry exercise, a building up of relationships between parishes and the Connor Youth Council. In addition to which there will then exist a basis and a mechanism for identifying potential new members of the Youth Council with representation from all ten Rural Deaneries. In other words the process should encourage the building of networks and the creation of linkages.

In addition, at the back of my mind there lurks an additional possibility. If Rural Deanery consultations prove to be a success, there may be encouragement to consider the creation of a structure akin to the Rural Deanery Synods that exist in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Made up of parochial representatives including diocesan synodsmen, Rural Deanery Synods or their like could become both a means of discussing issues of mutual concern, and also a mechanism for breaking down the ignorance that inhibits nomination to the General Synod and other important bodies. The Church of Ireland populations represented at Diocesan Synods in some dioceses of the Church of Ireland are fewer in number than the populations of any one Rural Deanery in Connor. It may be the wisest course first to address the issues of participation and representation that confront us in our own back yard.

The bulk of this address so far has concerned domestic diocesan issues. The work of God in the parishes of the Church of Ireland is not conducted in a vacuum, however. This year, for the first time that I can remember, while the paramilitary cease-fires are deemed to be technically intact, and while there have been two symbolic but significant acts of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, civil unrest in the form of street violence and ‘punishment’ beatings and shootings have continued throughout the year with hardly any break. The interface areas of North Belfast have seized the headlines again and again. I want to pay a particular tribute to the clergy and leading lay people of the parishes affected by the street violence for the pastoral care and principled leadership they have provided in extremely challenging circumstances. I want also to express publicly my gratitude to the Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, for her readiness to meet the clergy and receive from them the insights and understandings of devoted and well informed people with decades of experience and knowledge to draw upon.

The pattern of a patchwork of comparatively small, segregated communities, expressing and experiencing hostility, forced to live cheek by jowl with one another in North Belfast, creates conditions of very high instability. The vast amount of media attention devoted to the Holy Cross School debacle, with the attendant pictures of victimized children, propelled shocking images across the world. Without question the children of Holy Cross, the Head Teacher and her staff, day after day suffered serious and unacceptable abuse. They were also politically exploited, and political exploitation is seldom one sided. Furthermore, deplorable as the Holy Cross situation was and still has the potential to be, it was not and is not unique. In other situations, of which I have direct knowledge, comparable events have taken place but the decision has been taken to avoid the floodlight of media attention and to adopt a ‘low key’ approach in order to minimize the potential for the traumatization of small children. I have little doubt that the trauma suffered by the children of Holy Cross was made much worse by the politicization and orchestrated media hype that attended that situation. Nevertheless, let me say again, there is no justification for subjecting children to the fear and intimidation that was experienced by the Holy Cross children and staff and that has also been experienced by children and staff in other schools, in a variety of ways, elsewhere.

I have to express, however, deep concern about the conditions of isolation and intimidation under which some communities continue to live.

• I believe that we have a right to expect that schools and school children should never be subject to intimidation and attack.
• I believe that children being bussed to school have the right to complete their journeys in safety and not be forced to lie prone, on the floor or under the seats, for safety.
• I note that some districts are so run down or so ill provided that they lack the services we take for granted in a civilized society - shops, a post office, leisure and recreational facilities. Furthermore, those facilities are denied to people living in certain districts precisely because the facilities they are expected to use are located in districts that are not safe for them to visit. When such people do attempt to shop, or go to the cinema, or visit the Post Office for stamps or to draw benefits, they experience the threat of violence or worse, As a matter of justice and equality there are issues here of deprivation and social exclusion that must be addressed.
• I observe that in some cases street violence seems to be turned on and off like a tap. The evident influence of the paramilitaries in calling a halt to street violence is remarkably suggestive of their involvement in promoting it in the first place. It has become a commonplace to hear talk of ‘recreational rioting’ but such a term tells only half the story. It is clear that violence is not simply a pastime but has ulterior objectives. Too often, what takes place on our streets is a form of highly manipulated political ‘street theatre’ designed psychologically to pressurize and destabilize a rival community. This ‘street theatre’ is an activity in which ordinary people, often very young people, may be injured and even die, property is destroyed and the health and hopes of ordinary folk are degraded. Is it coincidence that, the armed struggle having been suspended, psychological warfare appears to have taken centre stage? One also has to enquire whether it is not the case that there has been of late a deliberate multiplication of the arenas of conflict and destabilization. It is just too easy to exploit the existence of a sectarian interface or of an isolated and insecure community, but to what end? There is too little evidence that the outcomes benefit anyone in the local community, rather the social infrastructure, homes and quality of life of ordinary folk are damaged as the fears and susceptibilities of vulnerable people are exploited.
• This being said, it is important to observe that antisocial behaviour is not confined to highly manipulated outbreaks of violence at the community interface. Vandalism and disruptive activity with no sectarian or inter-communal component are rife, and the justifiable expectations of citizens - and especially the elderly - that they should be left alone to live in peace are not being realised.
• Violence and conflict over a period in excess of three decades has contributed to a breakdown of moral values and a dangerous contempt for authority. I want to express particular concern that the contempt for authority of which I speak has undermined the authority of the police. That authority is further undermined by a perception that has grown in certain loyalist areas that the forces of law and order bear down more heavily on the loyalist section of the community than on the nationalist. I am not in a position to declare whether such a perception is justified. I am equally aware that there is a long history of complaints about oppressive policing from the nationalist community. All I can say is that in these matters and in this society it is necessary that the Police Service be as Caesar’s wife, utterly beyond reproach, and also that the emphasis placed on community liaison and information needs to be under constant review and given the highest priority.
• Policing in Northern Ireland has undergone radical change, a new Chief Constable is about to take up his post. The changes have been accommodated with remarkable grace by rank and file members of what was once the Royal Ulster Constabulary. More re-organization and change is, no doubt, in the offing. With the single exception of Sinn Féin, all the Assembly parties have given support to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. I want to express my unequivocal support for the new policing service. I want also to urge all citizens, whatever their political persuasion, to give their wholehearted support to the police. If there are causes for complaint and if there are perceptions of unfairness or inequality, there are now in place mechanisms for voicing those concerns and finding redress. All aspects of the administration of justice, including policing, must not only be fair and accountable, but must be seen to be fair and accountable.
• Significant parts of the community are disillusioned, disappointed and without hope. People on ‘sink’ estates with little work opportunity and minimal social infrastructure have justifiable cause for complaint. It is not that the economic and social conditions in Northern Ireland have not improved - on the contrary they have improved out of all recognition! Rather it is that those excluded from the benefits of such improvement feel themselves both powerless and voiceless. Ultimately, behind the manifestations of sectarian violence and community breakdown, there are to be found fundamental issues of justice and equality, and whereas those issues are generally argued persuasively and effectively within the nationalist community - and I salute that! - the cry coming from the loyalist estates is far less coherent and articulate.
• Therefore it is time, I believe, for a real attempt to be made to raise expectations in that community. People must be offered viable alternatives to gangsterism as a way of enhancing quality of life, and sectarian violence as a way of voicing frustration. A voice must be given to the voiceless; channels of communication must be opened so that the justifiable concerns of people can be articulated and heard. This is a task in which the church has a part to play. If this sounds like a community development model of mission and ministry it is, and I make no apology for it. Community, real community, must be rebuilt. The best foundation for such a building is the Gospel and the Gospel priorities of love, trust, sacrifice, justice, reconciliation, generosity and patient endurance. I salute the contributions of Canon Kathleen Brown, Canon Barry Dodds, the Revd Gregory Dunstan, the Revd Stewart Heaney, Captain Scott McDonald, the Revd Will Murphy, The Revd Paul Redfern, Canon Percy Walker and their colleagues in giving leadership, a voice and a channel of communication by means of which ordinary people, and not just those wielding firearms, can begin to be heard.
• The voice that is most stridently heard, of course, is the voice of paramilitarism. It is too much to expect the paramilitaries just to go away. They are rooted firmly in the communities from which they spring even though what they do is consistently damaging to those very communities. The Church, however, is even more deeply rooted in the community than are the paramilitaries. Our credentials are better than theirs. Yet the very fact that as people the paramilitaries are so rooted, together with the fact that their leadership includes people who possess gifts that could benefit the community at large, argues for a positive engagement by the Church. Paramilitaries need to be helped to understand not only that paramilitarism is destructive of the community from which it springs, but, more particularly, that there are belier ways of transforming the lives of people and communities than violence, ways which involve no abandonment of principle and deliver better results. No one is beyond the reach of the transforming love of God. It is the mission of the Church to make accessible that love and that transformation. Love and respect, not acquiescence or excuse, are what is on offer here, for the sake of the Kingdom of God and for the sake of the hurt and vulnerable, the very ones for whom, in Christ God showed his deepest compassion and concern, Our Lord’s own prayer comes to mind:

Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you,
And they know that you have sent me.
I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known
In order that the love you have for me may be in them
And that I myself may be in them. (Jn. 17.25-6)

Love not fear must be brought back into the lives of the vulnerable and the voiceless.

This has been a long but, I hope, not tedious address. Serious issues confront and challenge us as a diocese and as a church. I have tried to identify those of highest priority. Long as this address has been it cannot compare in length or scope to the 50 years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her visit last month was an enormously significant event. Her presence at the service in St Anne’s Cathedral on Wednesday 15th May will long be remembered with joy and thankfulness. She herself specifically recalled it in her speech on Tuesday last at the Banquet given in her honour by the Lord Mayor of London. Her example of diligent and faithful duty remains an inspiration to many millions, a sheet anchor embedded firmly in the rock of her faith in Almighty God. Her example is one from which each of us cap learn, and learning, grow.

Even longer, however, is the 70 years of faithful and diligent service to God and his Church that will be celebrated later this month at a communion service in Agherton Parish Church on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the ordination of the Revd C.A.B. Williams. On behalf of the Synod I offer our congratulations and thanks to him on this momentous anniversary.

Amidst all the challenges that confront us it is an inspiration to be able to ponder two such outstanding examples of diligent and faithful duty - duty to God and duty to one’s neighbour - represented equally by mighty prince and humble priest. For both of them, and for you all, my sisters and brothers in Christ, I say a heartfelt ‘Thanks be to God.’