The Report of the Commission of Episcopal Ministry and Structures was presented to General Synod this afternoon (Friday May 13). Discussion on the report was taken in conjunction with a motion which was proposed by the Commission.

Proposing the report, Eithne Harkness said this was the final report of the commission as the term of office would end with the closure of this synod. She explained that they had not been set up as a boundaries commission and said that among items already achieved were the Bill on Episcopal Proceedings which was presented to Synod yesterday and the implementation training for bishops.

She said that the commission had concerns about the role of bishops. “We have concerns about whether our Bishops today are pushed into functions and activities that take them away from the functions in the Ordinal. That is teachers and pastoral oversight. Last year, the Commission asked every diocese and central Church body to consider the expectations they place on Bishops, transferring jobs from Bishops to other people. Let’s all try to do more to release our Bishops to do more ‘bishopping’,” she said.

On the matter of diocesan boundaries, Mrs Harkness said that the commission published a booklet of guidelines at General Synod 2015 containing maps of where those guidelines might lead. “Last year, Synod approved our thinking and asked us to bring proposals forward this year. We consulted and invited feedback. In some places that was forthcoming and we felt warmly welcomed. In other places there was not full engagement. We met some apathy, some complacency and some nimby–ism and some church politics. We are convinced that there is an appetite for change but wonder if there is an appetite to change,” she stated.

A 10 diocese scheme was not acceptable to the two Archbishops, she stated so

they put forward the alternative in the Bill and she said that the commission feels that is the best option for effective Episcopal ministry available. She said the commission was saddened by the response to their proposal.

The members of the commission were really divided about the best way ahead at that point, she said. “We felt a real obligation to bring our final scheme to General Synod because we were told to do that and it is an issue for General Synod to decide. But, we did not seek confrontation and did not see the wisdom of imposing change where it is not embraced. Even if General Synod has the power to enforce change is this the best way forward? We felt that new structures could more easily emerge out of an atmosphere of harmony not of resentment. We felt that the outcome of our work should not be about success or failure for the Commission, but better Episcopal ministry for the church. So for this reason, we put forward our resolution,” she said.

Mrs Harkness explained that the motion encourages those directly affected to explore possibilities building on four years of work and said change was more likely to emerge through conversation and agreement. Speaking to the motion Mrs Harkness encouraged people to explore opportunities for change based on the work done.

The report was seconded by Edward Hardy. He believed that every possible scenario in relation to diocesan boundaries had been discussed. “I have to honestly say that I was personally disappointed at the withdrawal of the Bill No 2 2016 as presented. Was there really a feeling that after four years of discussion and work that no change would be proposed? Is there really an appetite for change within our church?” Mr Hardy asked.

He said everyone had a responsibility to ensure that conversations continued and concluded quickly to allow scope for implementation of diocesan structures to meet the needs of the Church.

Debate on the report and the motion included the following points.

• Archdeacon Andrew Forster (Armagh) said it had been a privilege to work with such an engaging team. He urged that not all the work of the commission be shelved. In particular he said it was important to free Bishops for their ministry and celebrate the diversity of their gifts. He said Ethne Harkness’s chairmanship had been nothing short of excellent and the Church owed her a debt of gratitude. He said one of the things the Church of Ireland could offer to the world was how to disagree agreeably. He said the motion presented provided a good way out, a positive future, a way to continue discussions and a way to help with our mission and ministry.
• Jock Sanders (Killaloe) thanked CEMS for their motion and said it returned consideration of boundaries to the affected dioceses. Over the last year he chaired a working group to examine the CEMS proposals for boundary changes. When the diocesan council saw the proposal there were many unanswered questions and concerns about financial implications and distances. The proposed Diocese of the West would have been 370 km long and it would have taken five hours to travel from one end to the other. Despite these concerns he said the diocesan council would welcome any diocese to which we might be joined. Since the Bill was withdrawn the Bishop of Limerick and Killaloe has initiated discussion along the lines of this Motion, he added.
• The Revd Stephen Neill (Glendalough) said he would love to be in a position to welcome the motion. He said he appreciated the work the commission had done but had a sense that the motion as presented was in danger of limiting possibilities. He suggested that CEMS should look at the Bill and see if it was right. The difficulty he had was that the CEMS proposition is far too narrow. “If it was to be truly creative there should be no diocese left untouched by this proposal. Picking off the low hanging fruit is not the way forward. We need a more holistic approach to the reform of our structures and this motion does not prepare the way for that,” he said.
• Archdeacon Ricky Rountree (Glendalough) agreed with the Revd Stephen Neill. He said that the commission rowed back on some of its intentions as set out in 2013. The Archdeacon said the role for episcopacy is important. We want to have real pastoral care and leadership and we can’t do that if we are just going to draw lines on a map. I would like us to go back to where the process had stopped. In my vision we should have not less bishops but more – they may not be full time. But CEMS don’t like suffragen bishops or bishops with other roles.
• Andrew Brannigan (Down) said Synod asked some of the best thinkers in the Church of Ireland. They started with these radical things but bit by bit it was taken away from them, he said.
• William Nelson (Tuam) urged support for the motion. He said the people of Tuam were ready to role up their sleeves and see what can be done and change was needed. “Let’s think of ways that can allow us to engage with people and actively embrace change. I’m pleased to hear that friends in Limerick are ready to work on this because we need to move on,” he said.
• Joan Bruton (Meath and Kildare) asked why the primate’s objected to the original plan. She also asked the Bishops and Archbishops, if they knew they had one week left in their posts. “It appears to me that the Archbishop and Bishops have taken on too much. They have to learn to delegate. We must embrace change. We were told that 14 percent of our people attend church. Ever since I have asked myself if the actions we are taking are remedying that,” she said.
• In reply Archbishop Clarke said that he and the Archbishop of Dublin were strongly of the opinion did not need a province of Ulster and a province of everywhere else and that the other provincial boundary proposal would not have worked either.
• Archdeacon David McClay (Down) spoke in favour of the motion and welcome the withdrawal of the Bill. He said he remained convinced that the Church needs structures that enable it to move forward in a missional way. He urged Synod to support the motion. He thanked Ethne Harkness for the way she conducted the work of the commission.
• Kevin Bowyers (Meath and Kildare) reported the feelings of Meath and Kildare as expressed at a diocesan meeting. The initial comments were critical about the lack of consultation and recognition of the anger of parishes that were supposed to be joining Meath and Kildare. There was concern that they did not like them. There were comments that Meath and Kildare might be financially in trouble and needed to be propped up. “We are financially stable and will be quite happy to go on. The move would have been good for Meath and Kildare and would boost our population by 40%. The meeting took the view that we would be supportive of the change and that we would welcome those parishes,” he said.  
•  Canon David Crooke (Tuam, Killala and Achonry) said that to create a diocese that ran from Sligo to Kerry was unrealistic. The bishop and members of diocesan council would have to travel hundreds of kilometers. A different diocesan boundary combination should be considered, he suggested.  
• Neville Bagnal (Tuam) had concern about the commission’s proposals. He said small could be beautiful. His biggest disappointment was that it was a commission on Episcopal ministry and structures – not  boundaries or numbers. He said that already people in the diocese had to take days off for diocesan meetings. The proposal would have made it even more difficult. “We need to look at structures at diocesan level and technology, then look at boundaries,” he said.
•  Bishop Patrick Rooke (Tuam) appealed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the people of Dublin and Glendalough that if the motion was passed that they would take it seriously and discuss issues with Meath and Kildare. “We strongly believe that something needs to be done by Dublin to help Meath and Kildare. They may not need help now but they will do in the future. We don’t want Meath and Kildare to be the Tuam of the future,” he stated. He suggested that opposition was always going to be the issue but said the Bill was probably as inoffensive as the commission could have come up with “and look at the rumpus it has created”. He added: “I regret that the Bill was withdrawn and I hope that the motion will allow discussion east and west of the Shannon,” he said. The Bishop said he was confident that the people of Tuam, Achonary and Killala would respond well to a merger.
• Peter White (Limerick and Killaloe) commended the motion. He said everyone accepted that there needed to be change and it made sense that there be consultation. He accepted there were problems with the motion but said if the affected dioceses met and prayed and received the guidance of the Holy Spirit. what they brought back to Synod may be very different and be in new territory. There may be sacrifices to be made at central level, he said.
• The Revd Olive Donohoe (Glendalough) spoke as a member of the Glendalough Six. She said that one of the strengths of the Anglican tradition was the dispersed nature of authority. She spoke of the strong feelings expressed at Dublin and Glendalough’s extraordinary diocesan synod and spoke of a disconnect between the debate at General Synod and the feeling of anger at the lack of knowledge and information as expressed at Dublin and Glendalough’s meeting. She suggested that the implementation group be set up so that people would know what they were voting for. She urged the people to support the motion and urged the commission to be open to change.

Responding to the debate, Mrs Harkness thanked everyone for a very interesting discussion and for the kind comments about her role. The commission had come to an end, she said, but it was not the end of this piece of work. “We hope that through the motion the work will continue and our work can be built upon. As a church we really need to think very carefully about what the best way of doing major pieces of policy making, how we structure that task, how we organise it and who we ask to do it and the resources behind the scenes to enable the work to be done,” she said. She acknowledged the support from Synod Services and Church House.

The report of the Commission on Episcopal Ministry and Structures was received by Synod.

The motion:

COMMISSION ON EPISCOPAL MINISTRY AND STRUCTURES

Motion for General Synod 2016

That the General Synod

• Recognises that the task of reviewing the provision of appropriate episcopal ministry and structures for tomorrow’s church cannot simply be set aside in the light of the withdrawal of Bill No 2 of 2016;
• Considers that any appropriate ways forward are now likely to emerge from discussions initiated within and between the dioceses most likely to be directly affected by boundary changes;
• Requests that the bishops and diocesan councils of the dioceses identified in the withdrawn Bill now consider beginning processes that might, with diocesan consent, build on the substantial work of CEMS over the past four years;
• Further requests that reports on these processes should be provided to the General Synod in 2017, with proposals for legislation where necessary;
• Requests the Standing Committee at an opportune time to set up a committee along the lines of the Implementation Committee referred to in the withdrawn Bill to support and work with the dioceses concerned and assist a process of change.

The motion was passed unanimously.