Diocesan News12 Oct 10

Archbishop of Armagh Diocesan Synod Address Tuesday, 12 October 2010

At the Armagh Diocesan Synod 2010, in the Synod Hall, Church House, Armagh, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, the Most Revd Alan Harper will give his Presidential Synod Address shortly after 11.00am.

The Archbishop will make comment on the consultation paper on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration by the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, taking place against the backdrop of economic challenges and renewed dissident activity in Northern Ireland. He will emphasise his view that reconciliation is ‘the number one priority of the Church’s mission’.

In a speech which covers areas including work with children and young people, the elderly and vulnerable adults, and primary and post-primary education, Archbishop Harper will say, ‘We still need to articulate a coherent vision for the society ... such a vision must not seek solutions to the challenges of a divided society on the basis of equal but separate communities: separate development is not a recipe for a sustainable and harmonious future.’ The Archbishop will call the Churches, community and politicians alike to ‘seek solutions which focus on the hard work of reconciliation as the foundation of one united community’.

Archbishop Harper will also welcome the Bishop of Harare, Bishop Chad Gandiya, to the Armagh Diocesan Synod.

The full transcript of the address is provided below.

Good morning everyone, welcome to the Hill of Armagh. From here, in 6 days time I shall be joined by 22 other pilgrims on a journey to visit the places associated with the life and death of our Lord. Like others from the diocese who have made similar journeys in the past year I hope that our experience will deepen and enliven our faith. I also hope that, as we meet the “Living Stones”, the small number of Christian people who still keep watch over the holy places and make those places alive by faithful worship sustained throughout the generations since our Lord himself walked that land, our presence may be to them an encouragement and source of hope in what are for Christians beleaguered times. The visit to the land of the Holy One will re-connect us with our roots as Christian people. It will enlarge our vision of the extent and diversity of the Church of God: a rich and invigorating diversity.

We are privileged to be able to enjoy another such connection today for among us is the Bishop of Harare, Bishop Chad Gandiya. He comes to us from a country torn apart and a people reduced to desperate circumstances by corruption and injustice. He himself suffers day and daily with his people as he tries to restore his diocese after the disastrous episcopate of the now deposed bishop Nolbert Kunonga. Even now Bishop Chad is prevented by Kunonga and his friends in the Mugabe regime from accessing his own cathedral. We may hear something of the difficulties that beset the Church in Zimbabwe when the bishop addresses us after lunch. All I want to say at this point to Bishop Chad, and to Linda and Jan de Bruin from USPG(I) who are accompanying him, is welcome to Armagh. Bishop Chad, please know yourself to be amongst friends and please take back with you, to the people of Zimbabwe, the greetings and friendship of the people of the Diocese of Armagh

Both the peoples of the land of the Holy One and the peoples of Zimbabwe know what it is to suffer the division and conflict that come through unreconciled political, social and cultural rivalry and division. We know those things in our own very direct experience too. Little by little in the years since the Good Friday Agreement we, as a community, have been edging towards stability in Northern Ireland, a place more at ease with itself and our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

A journey like this is made up of many small steps before the desired destination is achieved. The main churches in Ireland have long been proponents of “A Shared Future”.  A further step along that road has emerged with the publication of the consultation paper on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration by the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. This is an important event. However, it makes its appearance to the accompaniment of renewed dissident activity designed, in part at least, to destabilise the community and heighten sectarian tensions. It makes its appearance also at a time when the financial and economic crisis is about to find expression in massive cuts in public expenditure. Northern Ireland is uniquely exposed to these cuts because of serious structural imbalance with well in excess of 70% of our economy is represented by the public sector. We may expect the impact of public sector cuts to be felt disproportionately here, exacerbated by the anticipated knock-on effect in the private sector. If cuts lead, as predicted, to an excessive rise in unemployment this will do nothing for community stability and cohesion.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State continues to challenge us about the economic cost of institutionalised sectarianism in Northern Ireland. We must show ourselves mature enough and robust enough to face up to difficult truths.

Within the context of Cohesion, Sharing and Integration, I wish to make some personal observations about our current situation in Northern Ireland which will lead me to say that we should recognise reconciliation as the number one priority of the Church’s mission.

1. I welcome the publication of the Programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration. I recognise that the programme is not an outworking of the underlying philosophy of “A Shared Future”, but I am thankful for some gesture in this direction. I support those measures in the programme designed to embed equality as a principle and as the experience of all in our society. I am concerned, however, if the programme is predicated on division. We still need to articulate a coherent vision for the society to which those in positions of political leadership commit themselves and aspire. For me, such a vision must not seek solutions to the challenges of a divided society on the basis of equal but separate communities: separate development is not a recipe for a sustainable and harmonious future. It should seek solutions which focus on the hard work of reconciliation as the foundation of one united community.
   
   
2. In the section headed “A Cohesive Community” you will find the following articulations:
   a) Our vision is for an “intercultural” society – a dynamic process where different cultures and communities interact, learn about and question their own and each others cultures.
   b) Integration and intercultural exchange is a dynamic two way process of mutual accommodation.
   
   These things are set out in a section devoted to creating a society congenial for the integration of “minority ethnic sections of the community”. It is interesting that, whereas the word integration appears in the title of the CSI Programme and is referred to in the covering letter from the First and Deputy First Ministers, it is not a concept that is obviously applied to the indigenous community. Concepts of integration and intercultural exchange are reserved for those who come into our society from the outside. In respect of “minority ethnic sections of the community” the vision is of a single integrated community and reference to multi-culturalism has been avoided. However, in respect of the host community, the word integration is largely avoided (except in relation to integrated education,) and an underlying but unspecified philosophy of multiculturalism seems to prevail.
   
   Again, the role played by transport networks in promoting good relations is described in terms of “connecting sections of the community and providing a neutral shared space” and the role of Neighbourhood Renewal Partnerships is recognised as serving “largely single identity communities” and aspires “to introduce or improve networking between partnerships and areas and between Neighbourhood Renewal Areas and their neighbours where these are not Neighbourhood Renewal Areas.” Surely the aspiration should be to create an integrated community, one society, not a network of non-integrated single identity communities separated by the device of “neutral space”. Such a device, by its very nature, tends to fossilize division by establishing a network of no-mans lands with non-porous boundaries.
   
   
3. The CSI strategy quotes a number of significant statistics, for example:
   a) 92% of people indicated that they would prefer to work in a mixed religion environment;
   b) 62% of people indicated that they would prefer to send their children to mixed religion schools;
   c) 80% of people indicated that they would prefer to live in a mixed religion neighbourhood;
   d) 87% of people were in favour of greater mixing in sports/leisure activities;
   e) Furthermore, evidence shows that segregation has a correlation with levels of deprivation: 14 of the 15 most deprived areas in Belfast are highly segregated. Yet, the current process for the allocation of social housing does not readily take into account the aspiration to live in a mixed community.
   

These are statistics indicative of the welcome fact that the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of political allegiance, aspire to an integrated future, not a future of equal but separate development. A shared and integrated future will emerge only partly from the re-alignment of government departmental policies. It almost certainly cannot emerge without a much more coordinated and radical engagement with other stakeholders in the community. Therefore it is disappointing to see that there are no proposals to create a mechanism for community groups, voluntary organisations, business and the unions to interact. Stakeholders across society need to be able to contribute their proposals for attaining a cohesive, integrated and shared future.

The CSI document fails to address the community or the Churches directly but we all face distinctive challenges in this context: how should the churches work collaboratively; what might sporting organisations do, and what sharing and collaboration they might engage in; how might organisations in the voluntary sector work collaboratively rather than individually? What about collaboration among the schools?

Let me therefore, on a wholly personal basis express my own view and make some response to my own rhetorical questions, with particular reference to the churches.

First, let me repeat my view that in Northern Ireland reconciliation should be the first mission priority of the Church. The first condition that needs to be met in the process leading to reconciliation is the open recognition that we have, in fact, allowed ourselves, in our various denominations, to be instruments of division, patient of or apologists for actions and attitudes incompatible with the teachings of God in Christ Jesus. Let us not fool ourselves by pretending otherwise. While we cannot change the past we can and should regret and repudiate evil actions perpetrated against other people in the name of our religious tribe. Much as we might wish to, we cannot re-write history but we should never hide from past offences, especially when they have been offences in respect of which we, as churches, have been, historically, consenting. We can and should seek to rid ourselves of unacceptable attitudes or actions that are our contemporary legacy from conflicts of the past. The standards of the past are not those of the present. In refusing to be imprisoned by the past, yet recognising the sin, we can and should start afresh.

Therefore, I contend that it is no longer enough for the churches in Northern Ireland to behave merely as polite neighbours engaged in discussions which rarely have tangible outcomes. To borrow the imagery of St Paul, setting aside what lies behind, we must strain forward to what lies ahead, pressing on towards the goal for the prize of the upward call of Christ. [Phil. 3.13b-14] We need to consider, as churches, what work we ought to do together to make fruitful and concrete the goal of a reconciled society. For example,

• the churches, which already provide most of the work with children and young people in Northern Ireland, and which share training programmes through Youthlink, must consciously sit down together, collaboratively to harmonise, resource and support each other at grass roots level. We need to examine how the contribution of the churches could be improved, enhanced and extended on the basis of “shared future” principles and incorporating the highest possible standards for the safeguarding of young people.
  
  
• The churches already, independently, make a highly significant contribution to the well being of the elderly and vulnerable in our society. We now need an audit of everything that falls into such a category, first to evaluate the work already in hand, and second to coordinate, extend and enhance such work for the future on a consciously cross community basis. Where particular churches do things well, or have expertise and capacity that others do not have, these should be shared, duplication reduced and standards enhanced. Think what the Church of Ireland could learn from our covenant partners in the Methodist Church and what we could contribute by working closely with the Salvation Army, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, and the Presbyterian Church.
  
  
• The churches, and especially the four largest churches, are already major stakeholders in the provision of education at primary and post primary levels. Schools already collaborate with one another, to greater or lesser extents, through Area Learning Communities and the like. However, it remains the perception that educating children separately tends to reinforce sectarian division. The Controlled and Voluntary Grammar Sectors are open to all children regardless of religious affiliation but have largely a “Protestant” ethos; the Catholic Maintained Sector, likewise, is open to non Roman Catholics but is committed to a Roman Catholic ethos. One of the statistics I quoted earlier is of considerable importance in this regard. It is the evidence that 62% of parents would prefer to send their children to mixed religion schools. I note, first, that there is a significant majority in favour of schools retaining a distinctively religious ethos. I also note that there is strong support among parents for a broader exposure of children and young people to the varieties of Christian religious experience. Parents want schools with a Christian ethos but they want their children to have a wider experience, and a wider respect, for traditions other than their own. They also want their children to grow up enjoying the company and friendship of children from a variety of Christian traditions. Can we not respond to that wish on the part of parents? I believe that we can and I believe that, as stakeholders, the churches should set out to create the links that have the power to draw separate institutions into an ever closer relationship of collaboration, respect and affection. Where new schools are required, can we not work together with imagination and creativity to offer a shared Christian vision to enhance the educational experience of children in our schools? Although the voices of secularists are strident we are not yet (and I believe never will be) a secular society. Patterns of faith are changing but faith itself is not in decline, quite the opposite – that is probably why atheist secularists are so shrill. Our children deserve and need the rich and distinctive colours that each tradition brings to an understanding of the tapestry of the world that is God’s and the society that God calls us to serve and shape in his name.

I have tried to set out initiatives, beyond the merely conciliar, through which the churches might make positive and imaginative contributions to a shared future. Reconciliation and a shared future cannot be left solely in the hands of politicians.

I turn now to address a specific issue of the highest domestic, diocesan, importance: the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. The whole face of ministry is changing and developing in exciting and radical new ways.

Training for ordained ministry through the work of the Church of Ireland Theological Institute has been revolutionised. Our new system of training is becoming the envy of the Anglican Communion and will become a template for training in many provinces. The aspiration for the Institute does not stop at training for ordained ministry. There is also a settled intention, once the new system for the ordained ministry is established and embedded, to move towards resourcing training for that broad spectrum of lay ministries that are emerging as a vital component of our life as a Church.

Already, professionally competent providers such as the Church Army and the Church Pastoral Aid Society are offering training packages for lay people delivered locally. I want to recognise and commend the quality and the importance of such courses as a resource for lay pastoral ministry. We now need to provide a diocesan structure to enhance and support training for ministry in a coordinated way.

At last year’s diocesan synod I announced the setting up of a working party to make proposals to re-shape training at diocesan and parochial level to meet the needs of the Church in the 21st Century. A working group consisting of Canon Michael Kennedy, the Revd Elizabeth Cairns, the Revd Brian Harper, the Revd Barry Paine, the Revd Stephen McElhinney, Sr Valerie Thom CA, Mr Tom Flannagan and Mrs Izette Hunter met under the chairmanship of the Dean of Armagh.

Earlier this year the group presented to me their recommendations for the creation of a new body to be called the “Armagh Ministry Development and Training Board”. The aim of the new Board is defined as follows:

The role of the Board, under the archbishop is described as follows:

• To develop the concept of personal development and training in the diocese;
• To validate and co-ordinate all selection, training, job roles and commissionings;
• To monitor ongoing assessment, review and development;
• To ensure that correct procedures are in use, e.g. public vetting and barring, grievance and disciplinary procedures and insurance provision;
• To oversee training budgets and to make applications for grants on behalf of the Boards committees from the various grant awarding authorities including, as appropriate,  the Diocesan Council and the Priorities Fund;
• To approve replacement membership of committees; and
• To support and advise its committees.

The membership of the Board will consist of one representative from each of the six committees to be established under the Board, together with a further six members appointed by the Diocesan Council. As appropriate, the Archbishop may appoint other suitable persons to the board and also appoint Chairpersons, both of the Board itself and the committees of the Board. He may, himself, assume the chairmanship of the Board or of any of its committees but he will not normally do so.

The Working Group has proposed the establishment of the following committees answerable to the Board together with the remit for each of the proposed committees and the way that each relates to any existing committees. The committees comprise: Children’s Ministry; Youth Ministry; Mission, Outreach and Social Responsibility; Pastoral and Healing Ministries; Reader Ministry and Ordinands and Clergy. The objective is to bring about coherence and to ensure collaboration across the whole work which I have described as equipping the saints for ministry.

These are exciting and comprehensive proposals which I fully support and endorse. I am anxious that they should be fully implemented with the support of the Diocesan Council.

Since the work of selection, training, validating and commissioning of ministry in the diocese has always been the direct responsibility of the archbishop, it is right that the inauguration of the new structure should arise from and be authorised through my office. However, since I also believe that the Diocesan Council should be enabled to take a close interest in the work of training and equipping the saints, the scheme, as proposed will be submitted to the Council for information and endorsement. I also propose to request that, from time to time, the agenda of the Diocesan Council should include an item which enables the Ministry Development and Training Board to report its work and identify its concerns and priorities to the Diocesan Council. Thus I shall seek to integrate the work of the Board more closely into the work of the Council without compromising the autonomy of either.

Members of the synod will already have seen from the page 15 of the Book of Reports that Sister Valerie Thom, a daughter of this diocese, has been appointed as Diocesan Evangelist to enable the development of a “Fresh Expressions of Church” project amongst Loyalist Bands and Young Farmers Clubs. Valerie will also work alongside the Ministry Development and Training Board to build on the work of training among young people. We have high hopes that the Priorities Fund will provide substantial grant aid to continue and part-fund this project. I shall be asking the Diocesan Council to make a commitment to meet our share of the overall cost in association with the Church Army. These are exciting times. I hope that you, members of the diocesan synod, feel as excited and encouraged as I do to be part of this new venture in the mission of the Church in the Diocese of Armagh.

As a new structure for the future is put in place we have a duty to recall the mighty work of those who have been engaged in ministry training in the past. I especially record with gratitude on behalf of the whole diocese all that Canon Kennedy has contributed to Reader and Clergy Training and all that Canon Rolston has done as Director of Ordinands. That work is not at an end, rather, with the enthusiastic support of these and other stalwarts we are building anew for the changed times that lie ahead. My prayer is that, as we go forward together, by the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit, the work of the new Board will equal, if not excel the good things we have inherited from the past, as we seek to give substance in our day to what the apostle Paul mentioned in his letter to the Church in Ephesus. Speaking of the ascended Lord, he said:

Let us work together with resolution thus to build up the whole body in love.

 ++Alan