COMMISSION ON MINISTRY
REPORT 2000
1.	MEMBERSHIP
	House of Bishops		Standing Committee	
	The Most Rev RL Clarke (Chairman)		Ms C McCutcheon (Honorary Secretary)	
	The Rt Rev MHG Mayes			
	The Rt Rev RCA Henderson			
				
	General Synod – Clerical		Pensions Board	
	Rev Canon JAA Condell		Lady Sheil	
	Ven KR Good			
	Ven AET Harper			
				
	General Synod – Lay		Representative Church Body	
	Mrs A Forrest		Ven CT Pringle	
	Mr RF Palmer		Mrs CH Thomson	
	Mr DG Perrin			
				
	Principal of the Theological College		Honorary Secretaries	
	Rev Canon JR Bartlett		Very Rev H Cassidy	
				
	Co-opted		Co-ordinator of Auxiliary Ministry Training	
	Rev OMR Donohoe		Rev Canon KA Kearon	
a	Rev C Lindsay			
b	Dr A Pierce	
		
a	From June 1999	
b	From February 2000	
		
2.	SUMMARY
The Working Groups set up by the Commission produced various documents which signify the main work of the Commission during the year.  These documents, most of which are appended to the report, are as follows:
•	The White Paper on Pastoral Breakdown (Appendix A)
•	Replies to questionnaire on Auxiliary Ministry (Appendix B)
•	Regulations for the part-time deployment of clergy (included in RCB Report)
•	Report on findings after second round of parochial visits (Appendix C) and composite report on visits completed over two years (Appendix D)
•	Report on the overnight conference on the theology of ministry (Appendix E)
•	Report on the ecumenical conference - Mediating Church Conflict (Appendix F)
3.	TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Commission on Ministry was established by the General Synod in 1996.  In accordance with its terms of reference, the Commission makes recommendations concerning the Christian Ministry, both lay and ordained.  This includes the deployment of stipendiary and non-stipendiary clergy appropriate to the requirements of the Church of Ireland in the future.  Matters relating to ministry may be referred to the Commission by the House of Bishops, the Standing Committee and the Representative Church Body.
4.	GENERAL
Working Groups from within the Commission deal with specific areas.  These Groups meet separately and report to full meetings of the Commission, which met on five occasions during the year.  The business of the Commission is reported under the headings of the Working Groups, which are as follows:
(a)	Appointment and tenure of office of stipendiary clergy.
(b)	Part-time deployment of stipendiary ministry;  Auxiliary ministry.
(c)	Perceived needs and expectations of ministry.
5.	FREEHOLD
During the debate on the Green Paper at the General Synod 1999, the question of Freehold was raised.  Counsel’s Opinion was obtained in 1941, and the following is a summary of that Opinion:
While Incumbents enjoy a high degree of security of tenure, and may not be removed from office except for the reasons specified in the Constitution Chapter IV Sections 31 - 36, this security does not amount to “Freehold”, which was abolished by the Irish Church Act 1869, and whose provisions came into effect from the 1st of January 1871.  Prior to that date, Freehold conferred on a minister instituted to an incumbency certain territorial and property rights which could not be removed without his consent.  Thus, in giving Diocesan Synods power to unite, divide, or alter benefices, a proviso had to be added to the Constitution ruling that if any benefice due to be altered were not vacant “the consent of its Incumbent, if inducted prior to the 1st day of January 1871 shall have been obtained.”  This proviso remained in force for so long as such Incumbents remained, but has not applied to any Incumbent inducted after that date.
Counsel’s Opinion, given to the General Synod in 1941, stated: “The position of an Incumbent may at present be described as ‘a freehold office’ in the sense that his right to the benefice is a right which will last for his life, unless sooner determined by the Court or by resignation, so long as Chapter IV of the Constitution remains unaltered and unamended.”
While the relationship between a full-time stipendiary ordained minister and the Church is not a contract of employment, it is nevertheless contractual in nature by virtue of the Subscription of the Declarations, one of which is an undertaking to “submit myself to the authority of the Church of Ireland and to the laws and tribunals thereof.”  This is in effect an undertaking in advance to abide by whatever conditions of appointment and tenure the General Synod may determine in the future.
Since 1941, Chapter IV has been significantly amended by the addition of Section 36 (compulsory retirement), and the General Synod, in accordance with Counsel’s Opinion, has exercised its powers to make amendments or alterations to the conditions of appointment and tenure of cures.
The concept of “Freehold” is no longer fully applicable in the Church of Ireland.
6.	APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF OFFICE OF STIPENDIARY CLERGY
Members of the Group
The Rt Rev MHG Mayes (Convenor)
Very Rev H Cassidy
Rev Canon JAA Condell
Rev OMR Donohoe
Mr RF Palmer
Ven CT Pringle
A Green Paper on Pastoral Breakdown was appended to the report of the Commission to the General Synod in 1999.  The Commission noted that there was a positive response to the Green Paper by the Synod and that the Commission now had a mandate to bring forward legislation and a recommended code of practice to implement the proposals in the Green Paper.
During the year, the Commission has given much consideration to the proposals for a mediation procedure and the conditions required for payment of a severance package.  The Commission decided that detailed proposals for legislation be submitted in a White Paper for consideration by the Synod. (Appendix A)
7.	PART-TIME DEPLOYMENT OF STIPENDIARY MINISTRY;   AUXILIARY MINISTRY
Members of the Group
Mr DG Perrin (Convenor)	Rev Canon KA Kearon	
Lady Sheil	Rev Canon JR Bartlett	
Mrs CH Thomson	Rev C Lindsay	
		
The Statute passed by the General Synod in 1999 to provide for the part-time deployment of Stipendiary Ministry, includes a provision, under Section (4) d of Canon 34, for regulations to be made by the Representative Body.  The regulations agreed by the Representative Body are printed on page 59 in its report to the General Synod.
A questionnaire was sent to all auxiliary ministers in order to obtain their views on all aspects of the auxiliary ministry.  More than two-thirds of the questionnaires were completed and those returned were analysed by the group.  A summary of the replies is attached as Appendix B.  As some of the auxiliary ministers indicated that they would like an opportunity to meet with the group, a meeting of those who replied to the questionnaire is being arranged.
8.	PERCEIVED NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF MINISTRY
Members of the Group
Ven AET Harper (Convenor)	Mrs A Forrest	
The Rt Rev RCA Henderson	Ven KR Good	
Ms C McCutcheon		
		
The group continued to examine the needs and expectations of ministry, by the process of consultations at parochial level in selected parishes throughout the Church.
A report on the initial round of parish visits was appended to the Commission’s report last year.  Then it was pointed out that “ one of the principal tasks of the Commission on Ministry is to examine the life, witness and mission of the Church of Ireland in order to see how its ministry may be shaped or reshaped to meet future needs and opportunities.  That examination and any proposals for change must take account of the contemporary experience of the Church at parish level.  The sub-committee set up to examine the “perceived needs and expectations of ministry” has begun a process of dialogue to enable us to hear what people active in their parishes think and expect.  Representatives of the Commission were [again] generously received and in every case the consultations were open, helpful and illuminating.”
A second round of visits was carried out during the year, and a report on the group’s  findings is included  as Appendix C.  The group produced a composite report which derives from reflection upon the experience  of the parochial  visitations over two years.  (Appendix D)
The Commission is planning to arrange a Summit on Ministry following circulation and consideration of the report by parishes and Diocesan Councils.
9.	THE DIACONATE
The Commission has continued a study of the diaconate, with an emphasis on the concept of the distinctive diaconate.  Material from various sources, in particular from other Anglican traditions, is being consulted.
10.	OVERNIGHT CONFERENCE
The Commission met in the Church of Ireland Theological College on 16 and 17 June 1999 for a residential conference on current approaches to the theology of ministry and in particular, the theology of the diaconate.  A report on the conference is included as Appendix E.
11.	MEDIATING CHURCH CONFLICT
The Church of Ireland was invited to appoint delegates to an ecumenical conference entitled Mediating Church Conflict held in London in October 1999.  The conference was sponsored jointly by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (formerly the CCBI) and the Centre for Dispute Resolution.   A report on the conference is included as Appendix F.

APPENDIX A
APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF OFFICE
White Paper and Proposed Legislation
I Introduction
Since 1870 the procedures of the Church of Ireland for dealing with pastoral problems have been outlined in the Constitution.  These are limited in scope, being almost completely confined to matters related to infringement of the laws and canons of the Church, and involve the courts of the Diocese or the General Synod.  However, modern developments, particularly changing attitudes to authority and the establishment of tribunals and legislation in the secular world, have necessitated the development of procedures with wider terms of reference.
The Commission in a Green Paper recommended a procedure for conflict resolution to the General Synod of 1999 which involved, among other things, the establishment of a Provincial Mediation Panel, whose services would be available to each diocesan bishop in the event that all local efforts at resolving pastoral conflict had failed.
In its Report to the General Synod in 1999, the Commission stated:
“While the procedures outlined below relate specifically to conflict between pastor and people, it should not be taken to imply that this is the only, or even the most common, problem encountered in ministry.”  Other problems such as loss of sense of vocation, sometimes even loss of faith occur.  It should also be borne in mind that where conflict arises, it may be due to the inability of a particular parish to appreciate or accept the vision and gifts of its pastor, as well as the unsuitability of a pastor for that particular location.
The procedures for conflict resolution recommended in 1999 have been modified in the light of the debate, and are accompanied by proposals for legislation to be brought to the General Synod in 2001.  In addition, recommended procedures for Provincial Mediation Panels are set out.
It should be emphasised that these procedures are not to be taken as legal proceedings.  Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in keeping written records
II Recommended Procedures in Conflict Resolution
1.	When it becomes apparent that any serious problem has arisen, every effort shall be made to resolve it informally by discussion and agreement at parish level.
2.	If the issue has not been resolved, the matter may be referred by the Rector or Churchwardens to the Archdeacon/Rural Dean, who will investigate the matter and try to bring about a resolution.
3.	The Archdeacon/Rural Dean will convey his findings in writing to the parties involved, and will inform the Bishop of what has occurred.
4.	If there is still no resolution, the matter may be referred to the Bishop.
5.	The Bishop may avail of the services of a Provincial Mediation Panel, whose establishment and procedures are given in Part III below.
6.	If the issue is between the Bishop of the diocese and one of his clergy or parishes, the matter may be referred by the Archdeacon and the Dean to the Archbishop of the province, or in the case of an Archbishop, to the Archbishop of the other province.
7.	The Archbishop shall investigate the matter and shall convey his findings to the parties concerned.
8.	Where conflict concerns the ministry of the Bishop, the issue will be referred to the Archbishop of the Province who, after due investigation, may refer it to the Provincial Mediation Panel or to the House of Bishops.
III Provincial Mediation Panels
(a)	Proposed Legislation
•	A Mediation Panel shall be set up in each Province
•	The purpose of the Provincial Panel shall be to act as an outside resource to a diocesan bishop when local attempts to resolve situations of conflict are unsuccessful
•	It shall consist of one ordained and one lay person from each united/grouped diocese in the Province, appointed triennially by the Bishop
•	The Provincial Panel shall appoint a Chairman and Secretary
•	The Panel shall deal with such cases as may be referred to it by a diocesan bishop, when local efforts at effecting a resolution have failed.
•	The Panel shall complete its work within three months.
(b)	Recommended Procedures
1.	The Panel, on being called to assist, shall appoint a Mediation Team of four of its own members, none of whom shall be appointees of the diocese concerned
2.	The Mediation Team shall have the power to co-opt not more than two additional members who have experience and expertise in conflict resolution
3.	All records of previous attempts at resolution within the diocese shall be made available to the Mediation Team, who shall also have the right to meet the parties concerned.  The parties concerned may be accompanied at any meeting with the Mediation Team by advisers of their choice.
4.	On completion of its work, the Mediation Team shall report its recommendations in writing to the Chairman of the Provincial Panel, who shall forward them to the Diocesan Bishop.
5.	The recommendations of the Mediation Team shall be conveyed by the Bishop to the parties concerned.
6.	The Mediation Team shall have power to recommend (a) that no action be taken; (b) that a minister should seek re-deployment within the diocese or elsewhere; (c) retirement from ministry.
7.	Where recommendation (c) involves a stipendiary minister, and where the minister concerned agrees with the recommendation, the Bishop shall notify the Severance Committee who shall be empowered to negotiate financial compensation to enable the minister to move out of stipendiary ministry.
Note:	The Commission recognises that the causes of conflict are not always to be found within the ordained ministry, and may equally lie within a parish.
8.	It is recommended that those appointed to the Provincial Panel should receive training in conflict resolution.
9.	The costs of the Provincial Panels and of training members should be borne by central funds.
10.	The costs of Mediation Teams should be borne by the diocese seeking its services.
11.	The parties concerned should be responsible for their own costs.
IV Moving out of Stipendiary Ministry
Problems can often occur simply because a particular pastor is not suited to a particular situation, and it is frequently much more advantageous to all concerned simply to relocate him in another parish.  It is sometimes the case, however, that the relocation of a pastor can simply mean the relocation of the problem, and serious consideration should be given to enabling him to move out of stipendiary ministry altogether and into some other occupation if the person concerned agrees that his ministry has broken down, or that he no longer has a vocation.
Since clergy do not come into the category of employee, they are not covered by any employment legislation which provides for redundancy packages and other forms of financial support.  The “tied house” brings the additional problem of accommodation.  Where serious and insoluble difficulties arise in the middle and later years of ministry, such clergy are locked into an intolerable situation: age alone, regardless of ability, drastically reduces the likelihood of finding another job, and they have nowhere else to live.
Some form of severance package needs to be developed urgently.  As pointed out in the Commission’s report in 1998, the relationship between Church and clergy, while not that of employer/employee, is certainly covenantal, and this does entail at least a moral obligation of concern for the wellbeing of clergy.  What we propose is not in any sense to be taken as a form of early retirement package, and any legislation based on these recommendations should be framed accordingly.
The Commission recommends that severance support, in the form of a once-off lump sum payment, be made available. The administration of a fund set up for this purpose should be carried out by a Severance Committee, which should be made up as follows:
The Chairman of the RCB Executive Committee (or his nominee)
The Chief Officer of the RCB
A clergyman nominated by the House of Bishops
The Committee may appoint an independent inspector, or an inspector from its own members as it sees fit, to review the financial circumstances in each case, to interview and/or negotiate with the individual concerned and to make recommendations.
It should be made clear that acceptance of severance support is conditional on moving out of the stipendiary ministry of the Church of Ireland permanently. Contributions to the Church of Ireland Pension Fund would cease at the time of severance, and pension entitlements would be based solely on years of service up to that time.  Payment should not be made until any Church property occupied by the individual has been vacated.
Should the proposals in this white paper be approved in principle, it will be necessary to establish a fund to provide for severance support.  Subject to legal advice, it is proposed to provide initial funding from RCB funds and, if necessary, to elicit support from parishes and dioceses by means of levy similar to existing levies to support the episcopacy (subject to formal General Synod authorisation next year).

appendix b
COMMISSION ON MINISTRY
SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO THOSE 
SERVING IN THE AUXILIARY MINISTRY
Contents
1	Title “Auxiliary” -is it appropriate?  what about “Non-Stipendiary Minister” or “Assistant Priest” or “ Assistant Minister”?	
244	
2	What are the major benefits/satisfactions in the Auxiliary Ministry?	245	
3	What are the major frustrations in the Auxiliary Ministry?	245	
4	What changes, if any, should be made in the role of Auxiliary Ministers at Parish, Diocesan or Central Church Government level?	
245	
5	How do you think Stipendiary clergy feel about the Auxiliary Ministry?	246	
6	How do you think the bishops feel about the Auxiliary Ministry?	246	
7	What financial support (if any) and/or reimbursement of expenses is provided in your case?  If not, what else do you think should be considered?  Is this adequate?	
246	
8	Training.  Is the present level of training adequate?  what else might be done, bearing in mind that many Auxiliary Ministers have other full/part time work?	
247	
9	Any other matters regarding the role and deployment of Auxiliary Ministry that you would like to comment on?	
248	
Introduction
Some 67 questionnaires were sent out and to date 46 replies received.  This tries to reflect the differing and often conflicting responses.
1	Title “Auxiliary” -is it appropriate? what about “Non- Stipendiary Minister” or Assistant Priest” or “ Assistant Minister”?
Where there were specific responses given eight indicated that they would like the title “Non-Stipendiary Minister” and about 20 indicating a preference for “Assistant Priest” or “Assistant Minister” with a preference being for priest not minister.  Quite a few expressed objections to the use of the word Auxiliary because it emphasised not quite the real thing or less than the real thing or not being fully fit etc.  On the other hand many said they were quite happy with the current title.  One or two indicated that their work determined their title ie curate, chaplain etc.
In conclusion I see no clear reason to change the title.
2	What are the major benefits/satisfactions in the Auxiliary Ministry?
Some nine replied to say that it was the benefit of serving without administrative responsibility ie running a parish.  Ten replied that the major benefit was to minister the workplace or the community or identify with those in the workplace.  Six said it was fulfilling by vocation as a priest particularly where they were not able to work full time because of other commitments be it family or work.  Three talked about helping clergy/parishes under pressure, three talked about being with people at their point of need.  Quite a few talked in general about the major satisfaction of being able to administer the sacraments.  Eleven talked about the privilege of serving/sharing.  One particular quotation “people are very grateful for what we do, they don’t feel we have to do it”.
3	What are the major frustrations in the Auxiliary Ministry?
Five commented on being seen as the spare wheel, second class, plugging the gap.  Two commented on not being able to occupy the position and responsibility of rector.  Five talked about difficulties, poor communication/incompatibility with the rector.  Three commented on not being involved enough.  Eleven commented on the difficulties of balancing work, family and ministry.  Three specifically mentioned not seeing the family unit in church.  Six commented on not being able to be used in their home parish or living at a distance from where they minister.  Other comments included being moved from parish to parish with no choice or say in the matter, a comment on allocation of resources.  Having said all this eight said that in their personal case there were no frustrations.
In conclusion, the “rules” as such need to be clearly explained and consistently applied.  For example the issue of being able to serve in one’s own parish.  This is permitted in certain cases but not in others.  There also, in my view, needs to be a procedure of regular checks to ensure the balance is fair, particularly for those who have other responsibilities being family, work as well as ministry commitments. 
4	What changes, if any, should be made in the role of Auxiliary Ministers at Parish, Diocesan or Central Church Government level? 
Two again referred to changing the title.  Three referred to compensation being pay and expenses and one specifically mentioned having the same arrangement on car loans as full time clergy.  Two commented on more effort needs to be made to relate the talents of the Auxiliary Minister to the needs and reflecting their particular experience.  Again three commented on needing consistency in whether Auxiliary Ministers can minister in their own parish or not and one commented on having greater say in where they would like to work.  Three said they would like to be invited to clergy and deanery groups (although from certain other replies it appears that this happens in some or most cases).
This was a difficult question to answer and perhaps could have been phrased more clearly.  As a result some of the answers were vague such as electing a representative to central bodies or getting a gathering/meeting of Auxiliaries.  Again quite a few mentioned they were very happy with everything including the financial side but five mentioned uncertainty on questions of what I would call the “rules” in other words whether they can be members of a cathedral chapter and two specifically asked as to whether Auxiliary Ministers can be members of select vestries.  Again I think there is a need for greater contact between the dioceses and Auxiliary Ministers and between auxiliary ministers in dioceses. 
5	How do you think Stipendiary clergy feel about the Auxiliary Ministry? 
Ten said they felt they were not treated as equals, whereas 20 said they were supported and treated as equals.  Thirteen said it varies.  Some of the comments were as follows:
•	“probably the strength of the non-stipendiary ministry is not appreciated sufficiently by stipendiary clergy but the strengths need to be thought through”
•	“both sides need to work hard on this one”.
Comment:  those who say they are happy ie treated as equals often add that hearsay indicates it is different for others.  Again quite a few would note that in their view the situation has changed compared to 10/20 years ago and that they are treated as equals out of necessity ie the shortage of full time stipendiary clergy.
6	How do you think the bishops feel about the Auxiliary Ministry? 
Twenty five said they felt the bishop or bishops were supportive, six said they had no idea or not sure and nine said it varies with one saying it was better in the south than in the north.  Two said it could be better and one said it was poor.  One comment from a respondent who said it could be better was that “most bishops respect the role of Auxiliary Ministry.  However saying is one thing doing something is another”.
Comment:  again one gets the comment that many say their own bishop is supportive but they have heard it may be different elsewhere.  Having said this overall the response to this question is very positive and clearly the relationship in some or many cases between Auxiliary Minister and bishop is very good, highly regarded and very fulfilling to the Auxiliary Minister. 
7	What financial support (if any) and/or reimbursement of expenses is provided in your case?  If not, what else do you think should be considered?  Is this adequate?
Obviously there is huge variety of response both in specific terms and in general opinion.
Most of those who gave the specific answers said that they were quite happy with them.  Other comments received were:
•	I return all gifts and expenses back to the Church
•	Expenses are more than adequate
•	Expenses are not enough and no credit is given for travel time, telephone and other expenses
•	Two commented on that they would like to be able to avail of the car loan scheme like other clergy
•	“I do what I do for the love of it”.
Comment:  clearly some Auxiliary Ministers carry out significant duties (or are capable of so doing?) and payment of an allowance is surely appropriate particularly where they are doing regular parish duties.  This obviously happens in some diocese for example ‘‘as far as I know we receive the same rates when we work outside our parish as the stipendiary clergy”.  As least three commented on the need for greater consistency and clearer guidelines.  “I think there should be greater uniformity about reimbursing expenses but nothing done to remunerate non-stipendiary ministers as this would exacerbate the problems of stipendiary clergy and their perceptions (of Auxiliary Ministers).”
While noting that many are quite happy this is either because they were fairly clear on what the financial basis was when they were ordained into the Auxiliary Ministry or else it is because they have other (and often quite significant) earnings.  One or two who commented along these lines though would query whether the current practice would still be acceptable to them and to others if they did not have these similar earnings.  However in all questions to do with remuneration we do get a very mixed bag of responses.  We see consistently one or two people expressing the wish that they could avail of the car loan scheme for full time clergy.  Increasingly I suspect that there is a view that we might be in danger of using auxiliaries as “ministry on the cheap”.  A relevant quotation here “auxiliary ministers are not in it for the money but I feel strongly that all expenses should be adequately covered”.
8	Training.  Is the present level of training adequate? what else might be done, bearing in mind that many Auxiliary Ministers have other full/part time work? 
Obviously in asking a question such as is the present level of training adequate we are naturally going to get a lot of negative answers anyway so the responses here need to be seen in that light.  However having said all that there were quite a few strong negatives but also quite a lot of helpful suggestions.  Thirteen recommended that there be a day or days or weekend or weekends each year but obviously there are difficulties in this particularly getting away over a Sunday where many are clearly involved in parochial duty.  Four talked about their own study for specific diploma or degree courses and three said that training was quite satisfactory.  One of these talked about lengthening the period of training to four years and one made the interesting suggestion that training for the Auxiliary Minister could include something along the summer school line.
Comment:  quite a few used this section to comment on their own training for the Auxiliary Ministry and many said it was very good/excellent.  There is strong interest in either an annual conference or training day or weekend sessions as much for friendship/fellowship as well as for instruction.  Quite a few commented on the need for training for specific areas or practical issues such as conducting meetings or other administrative matters, burials, hospital visiting etc.  One or two commented on the suggestion that we might organise Saturday seminars on a regional or diocesan basis.  One respondent (who was generally unhappy with many other parts of the questionnaire) said “generally Auxiliary Ministers seem better educated and better grounded spiritually”.  One other respondent (who at least identified himself) felt that the Church of Ireland College of Training needed a complete overhaul with input from those in the non-stipendiary ministry who have feel for and experience in education. 
Other comments
•	“there needs to be formal training plan for all clergy, ongoing refresher courses/seminars with modules for auxiliary ministers”
•	“training given to all clergy is only of a minimum standard”
•	“Post Ordination Training is in my opinion extremely inadequate”.
In all this we have got to remember the needs of individual situations as follows “please please in any thoughts or on follow up training will the Church bodies listen and be sympathetic to the experience, personal situations, backgrounds and diversity of the auxiliary ministry.  General platitudes followed by a heavy handed plan could be very demoralising”.
9	Any other matters regarding the role and deployment of Auxiliary Ministry that you would like to comment on ?
A very wide diversity of answers, many of which have been touched on elsewhere in the questionnaire.  The subjects that got more than two comments were, three commenting on the need to have a fresh look at allowing Auxiliary Ministers to serve in their own parish particularly when there was a gap or no rector.  Three specifically suggested involvement in their own parish in a team ministry capacity.  Three raised the general question of deployment of manpower bearing in mind travel time, costs and the situation with spouses.  Three commented on the need to keep specific duties to Auxiliary Ministers related to their skills and experience.  Some of the other suggestions included the appointment of a co-ordinator at national or diocesan level for auxiliary ministry, reduce the length of training for the Auxiliary Minister for those who have been lay-readers and one commented as to why when switching to full time stipendiary ministry one years study was needed in the Theological College, one asked for reemphasis on prayer life together and the importance of daily public prayer and worship in churches, one raised the question of Auxiliary Ministry being represented on CACTM (one other person had referred to this in the answer to question four).
Comment:  the responses here were very varied and obviously reflecting a varied background, some with little time, some with possibly too much time!

appendix c
perceived needs and expectations of ministry
parochial visiTs 1999/2000
The Sub-Committee on the Perceived Needs and Expectations of Ministry conducted visits in ten parishes during 1999/2000.
The parishes visited were selected to contrast with the sample visited in 1998 in which ministry was known or believed to be under severe pressure.  The parishes visited in 1999/ 2000 are perceived as ‘successful’ units (but what is success?) and more particularly parishes in which new initiatives or imaginative experiments in ministry are being pioneered.
This paper will not set out the individual findings parish by parish but will endeavour to draw together some general conclusions and add specific comments for further discussion.
1.	general observations
The 1999/2000 selection of parishes consisted of units that were comparatively large and geographically compact.
Each parish possessed – either innately or through effort – a clear and focussed centralised identity.
It appears that size and identity are significant factors.
2.	shared characteristics
Each parish had, in some fashion or other, significant lay involvement including pastoral and administrative involvement.
The absolute pre-requisite for lay involvement is the permissive leadership of the incumbent.
There is no common model for lay involvement or its enablement and as a result that involvement varies depending upon resources, especially human resources, and more particularly upon the incumbent’s vision and motivating skill.
Success as indicated by harmony will depend upon the closeness of fit of the incumbent’s vision with the model of ministry employed.  This in turn has implications when incumbencies change.
Effectiveness and impact is not always calculated or understood.  Some parishes have sophisticated policies and schemes; others just happen to work to the surprise of incumbent and parishioners who are not necessarily aware of the reasons.
The role of the diocese was somewhat ‘variously’ perceived (even more variously the role of the Rural Deanery).  Some parishes live very much more to themselves than others, but apart from providing encouragement and sometimes funding, the diocese did not often figure large in parish perceptions.
observations and comments
The following observations and comments were made to the sub-committee:
Changes have been sparked by the rector’s leadership.  He was prepared to take risks, stand up to pressures and follow a vision.  The lay people were mobilised, trained and given the vision.
The parish expects the rector to ‘do most of the ministry’.
Worship is at the heart of the parish.  There is a real excitement about the Sunday School.
The key concept is what we know as the ‘Jethro Principle’: Moses’ father-in-law insisted that Moses could not and should not try to do everything himself.  He needed to mobilise help.  The parish had to come to share the vision.  There were two key appointments: Parish Co-ordinator (lay) and Pastoral Director (clerical).
We recognise that the church grows on the margins and amongst the marginalised which includes single parent families and the unemployed.
The following observations and comments derive from the sub-committee:
A shared vision within the parish is highly significant.  Identity is built out of vision, not vision out of identity.
Some rectors are initiators; some are maintainers; others, perhaps, are both.
Some incumbents stay too long but there is no mechanism for re-locating nor for limiting tenure.
Attention needs to be directed to the training and especially the re-training of clergy.  Clergy trained ten years ago or more may need new and different skills.
Does there also need to be a fresh look at the ‘essential clergy task’?  New skills to provide for the empowerment and training of lay people and the means to ‘validate’ the roles of the laity are all required.
We need a recognition that parishes and parochial situations are different: there are various types of parish and different types need different styles of clerical leadership.
Is there a case for commending the creation at diocesan level of teams trained and available to parishes to help them identify, articulate and realise the shared vision appropriate for them?  Is this an exercise that might be carried out, say, six months to a year after the initiation of a new incumbency, or at other times thereafter by invitation?
The book ‘Ministry in Three Dimensions’ by Steven Croft (DLT, London 1999, ISBN 0-232-52313-4) is commended as offering a coherent analysis.
The size of the parish matters, vision matters, lay involvement matters, leadership matters, appropriate levels of organisation matter.  Finance will be found for a shared vision that inspires commitment.

APPENDIX D
PERCEIVED NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF MINISTRY
Issues and Responses:  Preliminary Reflections
The report that follows derives from reflection upon the experience of parochial visits completed over two years.  The report is somewhat untidily divided into two sections viz. ISSUES and RESPONSES.  The ISSUES may either have been specifically identified to us during the parish consultations or, alternatively have been adduced by us as a result of the consultation experience.  Likewise the RESPONSES may have been indicated at parish level or resulted from discussion within our group.
ISSUES
Training
It is clear that those entering their first incumbencies are being called upon to deal with situations for which they are un-trained or ill prepared.  Many of the issues identified below have implications for training packages, either at the Theological College or in the post ordination phase of training.
Conservative Traditional Expectations
In general the expectations of  ministry, both of clergy and parishes, are not significantly different from those of two generations ago when clergy numbers were double those obtaining today, parochial units were smaller and the all round demands on clergy radically different.
Isolation
The isolation of the clergy is increasing, partly as a result of unchanged expectations focussed upon the ‘monarchical’ model of ministry.  This isolation is in no sense confined to rural parochial situations. In rural parishes clergy may well be considerably distant from clerical friends and wary of particular parochial friendships, but similar pressures may also apply in urban parishes, partly as a result of the open ended nature of the clergy task.  However, physical isolation is not really the issue: too often the service of institution is a signal for colleagues in the clergy team to disappear whence they came, leaving the newly instituted incumbent to cope unsupported, often in situations of dispiriting complexity.
Protected time
Ironically, at a time when other ‘caring professions’ have erected protective barriers preserving their free time and programming their professional availability, uniquely the clergy have remained universally accessible.
Change and confusion
Most lay people are not unaware that circumstances in the ministry (as in society generally) have changed and that roles are changing, but they are confused.  They want to know what is now their role yet they are fearful of cutting across the inherited boundaries of the traditional model.  They want to know what lay people can and cannot do.
Finance
Finance is everywhere an issue.  We live in an age of ‘professionalisation’ and we are experiencing a marked decline in the willingness of people to take on long term voluntary commitments.  This trend seems unlikely to be reversed, especially where protective statutory codes govern the delivery of what were formerly voluntarily delivered services.  The financial implications of such trends are clear and threatening. Meanwhile
•	Some clergy feel underpaid and yet are fearful of the impact of stipend increases on parish budgets;
•	Many parishes exist on a budgetary shoestring;
•	There is a culture of rigid financial conservatism.
Demographic change
Demographic change is at a level perhaps unprecedented since the time of the Great Famine.  Phenomena include
•	The weekly ‘tidal flows’ of people between centres like Dublin and family home locations;
•	Weekend holiday/leisure second homes for the more affluent;
•	Mushrooming public and private housing estates and infill developments;
All of these impact strongly upon established patterns of parish life and demand a response.
Worshipping numbers
Numbers attending public worship continue to decline both absolutely, in terms of the number of individuals who actually attend church at all, and relatively, since frequency of attendance has declined. Regular worshippers are perhaps now best understood as those who appear once a month or more.
Leadership
The experience in a majority of parishes is that people are willing or able to give limited commitment to working in a leadership capacity (see above). This problem is most marked where the demands for regular and responsible leadership are most pressing, namely working with young people. Consciousness of a need for training in leadership and “professionalisation” enter also into the conundrum of providing leadership.
Creativity and necrosis
There is a widespread twofold problem in the church: on the one hand it seems to be incredibly hard to persuade people to give a decent burial to what is already dead; on the other hand there is a stifling of creativity because of the heavy constraints of existing structures and/or traditional conservative expectations. This results in a failure to use such creative gifts and energies as exist at parish level.
Ministry to young people
The universal cry is ‘Help us to minister to our young people.’  That usually means, ‘We don’t understand them; we can’t get them to come to church; they don’t like the way we do things and vice versa; they are adrift from the church and maybe from Christianity…Help!’  This issue needs to receive serious and churchwide attention.  That attention will have to take account of the fact that there is no single ‘youth culture’ and no uniformity of requirement from the young.  Many, indeed are extremely reactionary.  A variety of approaches may be indicated.  Can the church cope with the notion (in this as in many other matters) that there is no single answer, solution or remedy?
It is important to understand the effect of this and most other issues identified here, namely demoralisation for both clergy and practising laity.  This manifests in the clergy as a sense of guilt and failure.
RESPONSES
Training
It is becoming clear that there is a significant need for new elements to be added to the traditional clergy training package and also for training and resources for the laity.
•	Clergy need training or retraining in specific areas
e.g.	Collaborative ministry
Education for change
Delegation
•	Lay people need an accessible process to allow them to discover what gifts they have.  They then require training to enable them to employ those gifts.
Resources
Resources (including types of training) and resource materials are available from a wide range of providers within and without the island, new resources are being developed all the time. What is now required is a comprehensive database/checklist indicating what is available and from where, giving examples of the type of material on offer. An Internet site would fulfil such a purpose, preferably maintained by an impartial authority. The site should also indicate which parishes, if any, have used the resource so that first hand experience of the value of the resource may be sought.
Ministry and leadership for young people
We ask:
•	What are parishes spending/investing in youth ministry?
•	How are parishes challenging young people to be physically involved?  i.e. What are they asking of their young people in terms of specific and achievable tasks and objectives?
We observe that there is much stress, guilt and anxiety amongst young people and that one great need is to engender in them a realistic sense of self-worth. This is assisted by valid achievement.
•	The church should look seriously at further professionalising youth leadership. 
•	Rather than professionals being seen as in support of volunteers it may be right to move to a situation in which volunteers are deployed in support of professionals. The cost implications of this will not be lost on any of us.
Collaborative ministry
It is time to explore and develop models of collaborative ministry for the Church of Ireland. We need models for
•	Collaboration among clergy and laity
•	Collaboration among neighbouring clergy
•	Collaboration among parishes and clergy from different parts of the island
•	Collaboration with other Christian denominations
In the majority of cases it will be essential to ensure that collaborative exercises are not conducted in situations of perceived threat to parochial status.
Vision and motivation
The process of promoting vision and motivation in parishes requires exploration.  Many commissions in dioceses across Ireland have studied the current and future state of the church and its ministry, but whereas this process may be forward looking in the predictive sense, there is no culture of exploring the future in the aspirational sense.  The time seems right to encourage in all dioceses the formation of teams or panels of facilitators available to work with incumbents and parishes at their request to enable the ‘envisioning’ process and to explore ways of expressing and achieving the vision once it has been articulated.
Communication
Much of the foregoing will be unfamiliar and perhaps uncongenial territory for clergy and laity alike accustomed to conservative and traditional models of ministry. That being said, nothing above is remotely revolutionary.  On the contrary, it is entirely evolutionary, based on existing structures.  Nevertheless, there will need to be an exercise in familiarisation and validation for the new ways of ‘doing ministry’ if they are to be taken up and accepted.  There should therefore be promoted an informed dialogue within the church concerning these matters.  We recommend that consideration be given to a high profile conference, a “Summit on Ministry” involving as wide a spectrum of clergy and laity as possible to engage and inform the collective imagination of the church and prepare the ground for change.
The lone rector in the parish, left and expected to do everything, presents indeed a depleted and defective vision and model of ministry.

appendix e
ministry commission
report on overnight conference 
16-17 June 1999
The Ministry Commission met on 16-17 June 1999 in the Theological College for reflection on (1) The Theology of Ministry and (2) The Permanent Diaconate.  The Theology of Ministry was introduced by Professor Robin Gill of the University of Kent, and the Permanent Diaconate by Dr Johan Dalman of the Swedish Lutheran Church.
The session on the Permanent Diaconate, while instructive and stimulating in itself, was very much focussed on the situation which pertains in a Church which has been state-supported until the end of 1999, and where the permanent Diaconate has been fully engaged in social outreach in areas which have largely been taken over by the State in this part of the world, and is funded by the State.  Outside that context, a permanent Diaconate would have to seek an alternative raison d’être.
Having said that, however, this is not to say that there is no social outreach that needs the attention of a Diaconate ministry here.  In many ways we have been brought up to expect, and even believe, that the State welfare services are omni-present and omni-competent.  It is becoming painfully obvious that this is far from being the case, and there are significant areas where this has either never been, or is no longer, true.  Care for the elderly, either in terms of routine support in their own homes or the building of retirement homes, inadequate pensions, multi-generational unemployment, poverty, drugs, debt, homelessness, all of these any many others are areas where state-provided welfare is either hopelessly inadequate or non-existent, heavily dependent on voluntary charities, and where a Diaconate could be a Godsend.
For a small Church like the Church of Ireland, it is clearly impossible to cover all areas of this dimension of ministry, and the options seem to be either to participate in already existing voluntary welfare schemes or to concentrate all energies on one or two that are specifically under the aegis of the Church of Ireland, such as the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly who do not need permanent medical care but who are no longer able to fend entirely for themselves.
This raises the theological question of the nature of the Diaconate, because it touches on the subject dealt with by Professor Gill when he examined ordained ministry under three aspects – Ontological, Functional and Perceptual.
These have caused confusion in the debate on the theology (and practice) of ministry, because the distinction between them is not always borne in mind in discussion.  Confusion is further compounded because there is disagreement as to which aspect (if any) should be dealt with first.  In fact there is a complex interplay between all three where each influences and even modifies the other.
Perhaps a good place to begin is with the third element, perception, for the simple reason that it will at least show us where we are.  This will anticipate to a certain extent the findings of the Perceived Needs and Expectations sub-group, so there will inevitably be an element of guess-work.  What do people actually think ministry is for?  What do they expect of it?  The Board for Theological Education in ECUSA conducted a survey a few years ago on the expectations of ordained ministry, and came up with some interesting findings, which will be even more interesting to compare with the findings of our own Commission.  Ten expectations were listed, in the following order of perceived importance:
1	Counsellor/Healer/Caretaker	6	Leader	
2	Minister of the Word	7	Community Person	
3	Administrator	8	Celebrant	
4	Prophet/Social Activist	9	Spiritual Guide	
5	Example	10	Witness	
				
A similar survey conducted here might well produce the same list, or one very similar to it.  While most people would agree with the content of the list and could probably add a few more items to it, one suspects that the order of importance might vary considerably between professional clergy and the person in the pew.  For example, No 8 would be seen by most clergy as central to the priestly office, yet it comes low down in most people’s order of priorities.  The five most important categories would seem to indicate that (the ordained) ministry is generally regarded primarily in terms of pastoral care and maintenance (administration), which accords well with the ministry of the Diaconate as it is exercised elsewhere.
Significantly, if the Church is to try to move from maintenance to mission, it would seem that a permanent Diaconate, exercising a ministry specifically geared towards social outreach, might be the vehicle through which mission is best exercised, particularly in a culture which is rapidly turning away from the Church in its institutional form.
To discover the perceptions of ministry will in part answer the question of the function of ministry.  Whatever the order of priorities, we can learn what ministry does, or is supposed to do.
To begin an internal dialogue on the nature of ministry implies at least a theological perspective if not a clearly worked out theology on the part of those who are engaged in it.  Whence comes this theology?  It is obviously a product of many factors – Scripture, experience, need, reflection, historical development, denominational context, contemporary world-view etc.  The interaction of all these will influence, or even determine, the form ministry is going to take.  There is no single “tried and tested” form that will hold good for all time, and it may well be that we are entering a period when ministerial forms will have to be radically changed to meet the needs of the present.
Furthermore, even within the Church of Ireland, forms of ministry developed in one place will be inappropriate to another.  For example, ministerial needs, perceived or otherwise, in a rural, still comparatively church-attached context, will be quite different from the largely unchurched urban scene of today.
From this it follows that ordinands may eventually be selected, trained and authorised for leadership within specific worshipping communities.  How “local” this process can or should be remains to be worked out, but a more flexible, de-centralised approach seems to be called for.

appendix f
one day conference on mediation – 
managing conflict in the churches
Introduction
A one-day Conference on Mediation – Managing Conflict in the Churches – was held in London on 5 October 1999.  Representatives from all the mainstream Christian Churches attended and the keynote speech was given by the Archdeacon of Swindon, the Venerable Alan F Hawker.  The Reverend Olive Donohoe attended the conference on behalf of the Commission on Ministry.
Report
In the keynote speech and other addresses to the conference, and in the literature, it was stated that conflicts are a part of church life and can be found throughout all church structures.  Conflict, however, has an adverse effect upon relationships and on the running, purpose and mission of the church.  It was further pointed out that conflicts consume vast amounts of time and energy, and that they often result in a breakdown in communications, a loss of focus and a poor working context.  Sometimes they result in irretrievable pastoral breakdown.  Conflict and the often resulting publicity when positions become entrenched and litigation begins, brings the Church into disrepute.
The areas most commonly leading to tension within church life were identified as follows:
•	public worship
•	alterations to buildings
•	personality clashes
•	small incidents blown up
•	serious wrongs
And the means of resolving such disputes was then explored based on the assumption that where there is disharmony the desired solution is reconciliation.  There is a need to work towards a mutually acceptable resolution of the disagreement or dispute.  And four steps to resolution and reconciliation were suggested:
1.	recognising that there is a conflict – not sweeping the conflict under the carpet;
2.	discussing the conflict – discussion the problem shows respect for the other person and a willingness to try to understand their point of view;
3.	understanding the conflict – trying to understand the other’s point of view;
4.	co-operating in resolving the problem – a willingness to co-operate in finding a solution to the problem.
The role of existing church rules, church wardens, the rural deans, the archdeacons and the bishop were briefly discussed.  And a case study, the particular one identified in the Archdeacon’s keynote speech, was the subject of a prolonged role play, in order to give some indication of the nature of the work of mediation, and the time involved.
This was very effective as it highlighted the sheer time and patience involved in mediating between the parties involved in any dispute.  Each party to the dispute meets separately with the mediator and agrees what may be revealed to the other party and eventually, after lengthy discussions with the mediator the parties meet face to face in the presence of the mediator.
Case study
In his speech the Archdeacon drew attention to the fact that there has always been conflict in church affairs, and that we ought not to pretend that conflict does not exist.  He used an example with which he was currently involved and where he was using mediation skills.  In this case a conflict had arisen within a Parish during a vacancy.  It concerned the annual Harvest Supper, which had been organised by the same team for a number of years and always had a fancy dress theme.  This year the committee which was appointed to ensure the efficient running of the Parish during the vacancy disagreed with the theme, and a conflict situation had now arisen because the poster announcing the Harvest Supper had had the top turned down thus hiding the theme.  It was turned up and down all week by the two parties and eventually it was taken down, although no-one would admit to actually taking in down.  The Archdeacon had been called in to mediate between the parties.
Following many hours of mediation it transpired that, although the presenting problem was the Harvest Supper, in reality the case of the conflict could be traced back to the early years of the last incumbent’s ministry and a perception by one of the parties involved in the dispute of favouritism by him towards the other party to the dispute…
Summary
•	Mediation is a proven method of conflict resolution, leading to an outcome which is both acceptable and beneficial to all parties involved in the dispute.
•	Mediation involves the parties working with a neutral and independent person, the mediator, who enables the parties to explore possible solutions to the conflict and ultimately to work towards a solution which is acceptable to all parties.
•	The parties retain control over the decision-making process and may achieve a settlement to the conflict while retaining their own personal integrity.
•	It was suggested that mediation skills be part of training programmes in Theological Colleges.
Mediation involves reconciliation, a restoring of relationships, and therefore is both fundamental and integral to our Christian faith (1 Timothy 2.5).  But mediation only works if both parties genuinely want to resolve the dispute: it will not work if one party has no real interest in working out a solution that satisfies all.  If there is a breakdown in relationships, mediation helps restore the relationship rather than bringing the relationship to an end.