Diocesan News20 Oct 09

Armagh Diocesan Synod 2009: Presidential Address

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

The Most Revd Alan Harper, OBE
Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland

Tuesday, 20 October 2009: The Synod Hall, Armagh

At the Armagh Diocesan Synod 2009, in the Synod Hall, Church House, Armagh, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, the Most Revd Alan Harper gave the following Presidential Address.

Full Transcript:

This is my third Diocesan Synod as archbishop. Quite deliberately over the past two and a half years I have taken time to familiarize myself with the way the diocese runs. Whenever and wherever possible I have chaired meetings of our various boards and committees in order to become better acquainted with their work. The first section of my presidential address this year, therefore, will concern

THE CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE

Two things have become clear to me:

First, I believe that it is bad for committees and bad for the Diocese and the Diocesan Council, to which most committees report, if the work of committees is entirely dependent upon the presence or direction of the archbishop. The archbishop doesn’t always know best, nor does he always have the best ideas. I want greater freedom for committees to think creatively and take greater responsibility.

Second, we are living in a time of great change in the diocese, great need and also great opportunity, therefore it is necessary that our consultative and decision making structures should change to meet contemporary needs.

The Commission established to consider the parochial arrangements and needs of the Church in the Tyrone and Derry Rural Deaneries has begun its work and will report in due course, I hope soon. When consideration and recommendations on the Tyrone and Derry Deaneries have been brought forward I believe it will be necessary for the Commission to move on to consider the Armagh Deaneries. The motivation must be to secure arrangements which will serve the needs of the mission of the Church going forward. This is not merely an exercise in rearranging deckchairs; it is about the best ways of deploying scarce resources and securing the financial viability of the parishes for the foreseeable future. It is also about reviewing, re-shaping and re-equipping the diocese for mission in an era of aggressive secularization.

A key component in this re-shaping and re-equipping is the changed provision we need to make for Training for Ministry. As bishop of the diocese this is largely my responsibility and I intend to make changes.

First, I need to make it plain that it is time finally to abandon that concept of ministry that attributes all ministerial action to the clergy. We did, in part, abandon such thinking 100 years ago when the Office of Reader was re-established in the Church of Ireland. Reader ministry has undoubtedly become totally essential to us in securing leadership in worship when ordained clergy are, for any reason, unavailable. More than that, it has brought additional riches through the talents of people who have brought fresh and distinctive experience to both preaching and praying.

But ministry is much more than simply the conduct of Sunday worship. Ministry involves a range of activities of care, teaching and serving in the community in response to the command and call of Christ in and through our baptism. Some parishes are already taking small steps to build volunteer teams of lay pastoral workers. This is to be encouraged so long as it is thoroughly thought through and thoroughly resourced.

It is essential that ministry teams are assembled through a regulated process, validated by the diocese. This must involve:

1. The discernment of gifts;
2. Full and validated training and equipping for ministry;
3. Careful provision for regular assessment and review;
4. Clear boundaries and parameters of responsibility;
5. Clear arrangements for line management;
6. Appropriate terms and conditions of service, including proper grievance and disciplinary procedures. This is important because all volunteers are now regarded as having rights and responsibilities almost identical to those of employees;
7. Public recognition and empowerment by the Church through acts of Commissioning and Sending Out;
8. Unambiguous arrangements for vetting and other publicly required scrutiny, together with whatever insurance provision may be necessary for the protection of volunteer, parish and diocese.

This sounds like a formidable list. Incomplete though it is, proper consideration of such things remains essential. The Church must embrace and be seen to embrace the highest possible standards in the discharge of the ministry of Jesus Christ 

I therefore intend to appoint a Working Group to report to me and, through me, to the Diocesan Council, to consider the following proposals for change:

1. The creation of a Board to oversee the whole of the provision and delivery of training in the diocese. The remit of the Board should embrace not only Clergy and Reader training; it should also include training for various approved forms of lay pastoral ministry.
2.  The identification of “training rectors” in “training parishes”. The reshaping of training for ordained ministry in the new Theological Institute brings with it new demands. Part of the new system will involve “internships” as part of the training experience. I expect to discuss with individual rectors the possibility of their becoming “trainers” of aspirant clergy undergoing the “internship” part of their training. I am very anxious indeed that this diocese should have a wide range of training places available both for those on the residential and for those on the non-residential pathway.  For those who are interested I have secured a number of copies of the new curriculum of the Theological Institute for information – first come, first served!
3. I believe that the current Foundation Course offers a useful resource for Reader Training when combined with local, “on the job” experience and I want this to be explored.
4. I am anxious that there should be well considered training provided and validated at diocesan level for parishes that wish to encourage lay people to undertake some form of pastoral ministry, be it house visitation, care of the sick and elderly, ministry to children etc. It is irresponsible and a breach of trust to expect lay volunteers to undertake tasks in ministry for which they have not been trained.
5. I want the group to explore the need to ensure not only that appropriate parameters for selection, training and commissioning are in place in the diocese, but also that there are agreed procedures for withdrawal from ministry and additional training where deemed appropriate.
6. These are all proposals directly related to the implementation of the Church’s responsibility for mission. I therefore wish the Working Group to make proposals for the replacement of the existing Ordinands Committee and the Committee on Ministry by a new Diocesan Board for Pastoral Training with a significantly augmented remit and an enhanced reporting responsibility.
7. I believe a new board should have, as a major component of its work, the provision of programmes for Continuing Ministerial Education (life-long learning.)
8. I believe that it may also be appropriate to incorporate the work of the Diocesan Board of Religious Education and the Diocesan Youth Council within the scope of the new Board, not least because their work has to do with ministry with children and young people and is heavily dependent on lay people being trained and accredited in their ministry.
9. Going forward, the work of the Diocesan Board for Pastoral Training would be to determine, in consultation with the Archbishop, the strategic requirements and, through dedicated sub-committees, bring forward specific proposals (costed where appropriate) for consideration by the Diocesan Council.
10. I find it bizarre, in this day and age, that the work of training and continuing education should be dependent upon income generated from the loose change of plate collections at “diocesan services”. This kind of ad hoc arrangement is no way to address budgetary priorities, nor does it encourage forward thinking and planning. The last word in all financial matters should rest with the Diocesan Council, therefore it is right that the Council should scrutinize bids for allocations to ensure that money is well used. It also ensures that the Council is fully involved in important aspects of the mission and work of the diocese.
11. I have asked the Dean of Armagh to become Chair and Convener of the Working Group. The bishop’s cathedral is the centre for mission and ministry in his diocese, historically the cathedral chapter was appointed to assist the bishop in his teaching ministry; all of which makes it appropriate that the work be considered by a body led by the Dean. The new Board, when formed, will then, together with the Theological Institute be in a position to report to the archdeacon on the suitability of prospective priests and deacons for ordination.

The role of the Diocesan Council is vital. The Council must take ownership of whatever may be brought forward. It is the body that represents the Synod itself. To my mind the Council has to take responsibility for much more than what has appeared to be its customary business. The Finance Committee ought to be trusted to discharge day to day humdrum responsibilities without wasting Council time in a “rubber stamping” exercise so that the Council’s role may become more strategic and creative.

I have one further diocesan initiative to suggest. I want to explore the possibility of arranging an Armagh Diocesan Pilgrimage to the Holy Land between the 18th and 26th October 2010. I have been to the Holy Land twice before on pilgrimage. It is a life changing spiritual experience. A diocesan pilgrimage could bring great spiritual benefits to the whole diocese. We should travel together and grow in fellowship. We should worship together at places associated with the ministry of our Lord. We should share joy together and sometimes weep together. Most of all we should renew our vision of the person and ministry of Jesus and the grace that secures our redemption through the life, death and resurrection of the Lord.

The cost (excluding spending money and depending on exchange rates) will probably not exceed £1,500. The benefits will be incalculable. Christians in the Holy Land have kept the faith and preserved the holy places for two millennia. Palestinian Christians need to know that we value their stewardship for, through their ministry to us, we are enabled to grow in faith. I will send out further information to every parish in the diocese and will include that information in a forthcoming edition of the Diocesan Magazine, “The Ambassador”. I hope that many members of this diocese will feel the call to visit the places hallowed by the ministry of the Lord. Expect to hear more in the near future.

I turn now to

THE CHURCH IN THE COMMUNITY

First, a word about the devolution of policing and justice powers. The progress made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in negotiating financial arrangements to meet the cost of policing and justice functions is greatly to be welcomed. The resolve of both Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness to progress this matter to a successful conclusion is to be applauded and admired. It marks an important and transformative step along the road to peace through government by consent. It also demonstrates a deepening maturity in the approach to the building of a strong, local representative democracy.

This progress is important above all for this reason: that it recognizes that the first duty of government is to deliver and assure justice for every citizen. While policing and justice remain reserved matters they lie outside the remit of the government of Northern Ireland. Justice is not, thereby, denied, but it does mean that locally elected public representatives are not required to take responsibility or accept accountability for the delivery of justice. When powers are devolved, that will no longer be possible.

Devolution of policing and justice roots these things in the soil of Northern Ireland as a crop henceforth to be home grown. The whole of local politics must, thereafter, be conducted in the context of a solemn obligation to build a dispensation wherein every citizen enjoys the right to full and impartial justice defined and guaranteed by a locally elected assembly. That can only be a good thing as we seek to establish, strengthen, develop and make fully accountable our fledgling democracy.

So far in Northern Ireland we have engaged in something we have come to call “the peace process”. We have concerned ourselves with the disempowerment of paramilitaries, the mechanics of government and the negotiation of programmes for government. What we have not addressed with the same urgency is the articulation of a shared and dynamic vision of what a peaceful society looks like or what sort of society we really want. Only when we find and commit ourselves to a common vision shall we have the information we need to design the mechanisms by which to achieve the vision. We need structures empowered by a vision rather than structures in search of a vision.

Some of the possible components of an empowering vision were set out in the “Shared Future” proposals. It is far from clear to what extent “Shared Future” principles are at the heart of the programme for government. I believe that the “Shared Future” agenda should quality assure everything to which the Executive and the Assembly put their hands. Everyone knows that the people of Northern Ireland, with the complete support of both sovereign governments, has voted for partnership government. The partnership mandate is unambiguous. We now need to be committed to a society that sees partnership as its goal and has partnership at its heart.

Society in Northern Ireland is not like society in other countries – but in a good way! We are at a stage in our democratic development where we have an opportunity to re-imagine ourselves and our internal and external relationships. Therefore we need to have the courage to engage in a conversation– perhaps vigorous, perhaps lengthy, yet respectful and tolerant – designed to help us as a whole community to move into a new and shared communal space. Political representatives have an obligation both to model and to facilitate that conversation and to do so observing the highest standards of constructive, respectful and tolerant engagement. Adversarial posturing will not do if we are to move beyond a phase of peaceful coexistence into a community life that embraces everyone and that everyone can embrace.

We need political opponents to see themselves as their opponents see them. We need to walk in one another’s shoes in order to see exactly where the shoe pinches. Understanding what causes another’s pain goes a long way to giving us the tools to make pain a thing of the past. We shall know that we are on the way to meeting one another’s needs when we begin to find it possible to work for and support one another. Part of the future we seek will ultimately require people from different points of view championing and responding generously to the needs of those from whom they differ without in any way abandoning the principles for which each in conscience stands.

I spoke of developing a vision of the society we want. I take personal inspiration from the 12th chapter of the Letter of St Paul to the Romans. Paul instructed his readers to cherish the individual gifts that different people bring to the life of the community. Furthermore he insisted that “Love must be sincere,” and so he said,

Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervour …Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction…Share with God’s people who are in need. Practise hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud but be willing to associate with people of lesser social position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty give him something to drink…” Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good. 

This, for me, is the kind of vision we need if we are to realise a Shared Future. It is, I acknowledge, thoroughly “counter-cultural”. It asks a great deal of everyone, especially political leaders. It requires genuine courage and true generosity. It is how things should be and I, for one, want a society in which things are as they should be.

In the spirit of such a counter-cultural vision I want to identify two priority areas in which I believe it is imperative we make rapid progress. They are:

Hard to Reach Communities
and
Young People at Risk

Both of these are important because both have the potential to destabilize our fragile entente and both involve real issues of social justice.

Hard to Reach Communities

I want a society in which all communities have full access to all the benefits society offers and where none are marginalized or feel themselves neglected. Many communities, however, especially protestant working class communities, have yet to feel any significant “peace dividend”. They remain seriously marginalized.

Such communities have the worst indicators of public health and personal well-being in the whole of the United Kingdom. They display extremely low levels of educational aspiration and educational achievement. There are serious and growing problems with crime, narcotics and alcohol abuse; housing conditions are often poor; family relationships and structures are often chaotic; and young people are confused, alienated and disaffected, exhibiting high levels of anti-social behaviour.

‘The Troubles’ are only partly to blame but these problems they have been exacerbated by ‘the Troubles’. Communities have become victims of an economic and social malaise that they continue to suffer even though street violence has disappeared.

It seems to me, therefore, that “Hard to Reach” Communities should become the focus of concerted action over an extended period to raise standards of health, wealth, education, housing and personal social responsibility. There should be a commitment to giving such communities a genuine stake in societal stability. This should be done by empowering local communities and giving them the opportunity to define and tailor their own solutions to their own problems.

In my view, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (the largest public landlord in the whole of Western Europe, with a major footprint in “Hard to Reach Communities”), should be invited to become the lead agency coordinating a sustained multi-agency response designed to bring about positive change. When I say “multi-agency” I naturally include the churches and community groups, all of which have important contributions to make to the transformation of society, and which, in the case of the churches, recognize the religious obligation to make a preferential response to the needs of the poor and excluded.

Furthermore, if we are serious about making partnership our blueprint for the future, we need to set aside the clientism of the past, as a result of which the needs of rival constituencies were articulated in a sectarian fashion, and develop a culture in which advocacy is disinterested, with Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists advocating passionately the needs of all communities on the basis of justice and need. Joint solutions, not sectarian/adversarial solutions, are what are required.

Let me now say something about

Young People at Risk

The future of our society and the peace which we all want is threatened if young people are not brought to the forefront of our concerns. For as long as we remain an unreconciled society, with divisive tensions merely held in check but not removed, the potential for a return to strife remains, with young people the most vulnerable. Young people are among the more volatile components of society. They are also the group most in need of a sense of belonging. The question for us is “How can we ensure that they do not turn to the paramilitaries for meaning, motivation and the excitements of secrecy and group membership?”

Here are some troublesome facts as recorded by the PSNI for 2008/9. During that period:

• There were 1,595 incidents with a sectarian motive. Violent crimes against the person account for 41%, attacks against property 59%.
• Shootings increased from 42 in 2007/8 to 54 in 2008/9
• Bombing incidents doubled from 23 to 46
• The number of casualties of paramilitary-style shootings increased by 52.4%
• There has been an average of 5 attacks per month on churches, chapels, Orange Halls and GAA clubs every year since 1994

In many of these incidents there is evidence of a new generation of young people – people without personal experience of ‘the Troubles’ - supporting or taking part. On March 7 two soldiers were shot dead; on March 9 Constable Stephen Carroll was shot dead; on May 25  Kevin McDaid was killed in a sectarian attack; on August 21 the Real IRA stopped vehicles and handed out anti-PSNI leaflets in South Armagh, a rocket launcher and machine guns were brandished at the scene; on September 6 a 600lb bomb was found in South Armagh designed to blow up a police patrol; on September 11 the family of a PSNI officer was targeted in Londonderry with a device that exploded under his parents’ car and a pipe bomb found under his sister’s car; a similar incident occurred last week in East Belfast with a device targeting a friend of a police officer; on September 11 a pipe bomb was defused outside a house in Belfast; on several occasions since term began, a school in Poleglass has been plagued by hoax explosive devices; last week a hoax bomb was placed on a bridge at Clady near Strabane; and so it goes on.

This is the reality of the “Peace” we currently enjoy – a level of deadly sectarian violence that is continuing and that we have, so far, merely managed and tolerated without retaliation. It is indicative of a determination on the part of some people to foment further violent conflict. Attacks in retaliation have not been a part of this scenario and it is hugely to the credit of community leaders that significant street violence has not raised its ugly head.

I recognize that it is unlikely that anything I, or others like me, may say will change hearts in groups desiring conflict. On the other hand I do believe that a focused address to engage with young people, to make them want peace more than they want conflict, to give them a respected stake in society, and to build a culture in which fear of the other finds no place and partnership is prized, is now urgently required. This has to be the agenda for the churches and all groups having a role to play in society including the loyal orders, sporting bodies like the GAA, the IFA, and the IRFU, as well as for political leaders on every side.

The true solution to preserving young people from falling into the clutches of futility is to give them a vision, a taste and genuine access to something better. Let but the pool in which the dissidents swim dry up in the sun of a generous society and the minnows of discord will gasp their last. More importantly, young people will have a future they can believe in and towards which they can invest their energy and enthusiasm.

As for the Church of God, we have a task to perform in the name of Christ. Let us do all that makes for peace and builds up our common life. Amen   

Ends