United Dioceses of Dublin & Glendalough

There is hardly a period in history that has not encountered change in one way or another, and yet there are times when events occur which make us more aware of the fact that everything cannot always be just as it was. The result of sudden change can be a loss of direction, a clinging to what can be salvaged, and a lessening of confidence in everybody and everything.

Change can easily engender fear, and fear is a poor accompaniment to really facing change. Holy Scripture reflects many times of such change and it is not difficult to see the fears and tensions that it produced – for example the way in which the people of Israel found it hard to move from a nomadic way of life to become a settled society, or the way in which a tribal confederation found itself drawn into nationhood. The disciples of Jesus likewise found it very hard to move from following a popular teacher around Galilee to being the disciples of one on trial about to be executed – and even harder to see the way forward beyond the cross.

This afternoon, I invite you to consider just some of the changes that face us in Irish Society, in the Anglican Communion and then in our own United Dioceses.

Changes in Irish Society

Recession

The most obvious change that we are encountering in Ireland at the present time is the economic downtown and recession. The extent of this downtown at the global and the national level was not foreseen by many people. The most secure employment, the safest investments and the most trustworthy financial institutions have all been threatened, and many people are feeling very insecure and unhappy.

As Christians, we are challenged as much as anybody else to face where our true values lie in times of recession. It is just as easy, perhaps even easier, in times of downturn to become extremely grasping, materialistic and self-centred. We cannot point to eternal values and personal values if we are not reflecting the priority of these values in our own lives.

It is only too obvious that if our society is to remain as grasping, materialistic and self-centred as happened in those years of plenty, the years of the Celtic Tiger, then the victims and casualties of recession will be those who have fallen into the “poverty trap”, those with skills no longer in demand, the long-term unemployed, the elderly, and indeed the sick. Those who are in need of hospital care are particularly vulnerable, given the disgraceful level of health services, which are the legacy of the total failure to address the issue when there was an opportunity to do something about it.

It is encouraging that many churches, both within their congregations, and on a larger scale ecumenically, are attempting to address some of these issues of poverty, social isolation, and lack of opportunity that already face many people, and will continue to do so for some time to come, so far as anybody can see.

It is not an issue of whether we support the overseas development agencies or work nearer home, it is not an “either/or”, it is “both/and”. In the face of economic change, we dare not simply cling to what is our own and isolate ourselves from the cries of others.

Culture and Education

The other change to which I want to point and then develop in one particular direction, is that of the changing culture within Irish Society. The context in which I will develop it is that of education.

Irish culture is changing for many reasons. It is changing because of the large number of people from overseas that we have welcomed to our shores, chiefly from Eastern Europe, Africa and Southern Asia. It is changing because they bring in many instances their own faiths, and of course their own cultures. Irish society is changing as it becomes more secular (though this can be over-emphasized) and the forces of secularism challenge many assumptions that had been made in the past. We are changing because the whole global culture of which we are part is essentially individualistic and tends to draw people away from community beliefs and even in some cases community identity. It is little wonder that the reaction often comes in the extremes of the expression of local and even national identities. There is indeed a constant risk of racism in this context.

The place where many of these tensions are first felt in a society is frequently in the classroom, and in the provision of opportunities for education.

A debate has intensified across the last few months as to the role of the churches in education. On 25th July of this year, the 93rd Session of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations reported that the Irish Government should do more to ensure that non-denominational, secular primary education is made available to all, “in view of the increasingly diverse and multi-ethnic composition of the population.”

It must be said that this situation had already been recognised last year and one response from the Department of Education and Science was the Community Model primary Schools under the patronage of the County Dublin Vocational Education Committee. The former Minister for Education and Science, Mary Hanafin, described them as being “inter-denominational in character, aiming to provide for religious education and faith formation during the school day for each of the main faith groups represented…. the schools will operate through an ethos of inclusiveness and respect for all beliefs, both religious and non-religious.”

There would seem to be nothing for the Churches to challenge here, except that the practicalities of these aspirations may prove problematic. So far there are three schools under this model of Patronage.

For a much longer period of time, Educate Together has provided an alternative to Church Patronage, and at present there are twenty two schools in greater Dublin under their oversight. Rather than being set up to maintain particular religious viewpoints, these schools seek (I quote from an article by Paul Rowe) to “allow young children to appreciate and be informed and comfortable with those of differing faiths to themselves….. In so doing, the schools aim to mirror our contemporary social space in which division and discrimination on religious grounds is illegal. The Educate Together model ……..places the responsibility for faith formation on the child's family and, if they belong to one, their religious organisation.” (end of quotation).

So the issue is then, what of the model of Church patronage with which we have lived? In this diocese, we have forty eight primary schools of which I am Patron. Each draws up its own policies as required by the Education Act, but as Patron, I have responsibility for ensuring that these reflect the purpose for which the schools were established – that of being truly Church of Ireland schools, and yet open to others, and in conformity with the Education Act.

Canon John McCullagh, Secretary of the General Synod Board of Education has drawn attention to several features of our schools. For example in Enrolment policies - while preference is given to Church of Ireland pupils and those from the wider Protestant community, schools cater for those outside this tradition. A recent suggested addition for enrolment policies in this diocese included the suggestion that they should include a category “members of other Christian Churches for whom specific provision is not made within the educational system”.

While Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act allows for preference to be given, all things being equal, to a Church of Ireland teacher, Church of Ireland schools are professionally staffed by teachers from all backgrounds who are sympathetic to the spirit and ethos of the school.

These schools have reacted positively to the growing pluralism in the State by being welcoming and open to all. One can see in the recent audit of enrolment policies a substantial number of Church of Ireland schools who have above the average number of pupils for whom English or Irish is not a first language or indeed have an above average number of pupils with special education needs.

At first sight, it might seem that there is little to separate a school under Church patronage from those under other models of patronage. However a school under Church management offers more than a variety, it does so within the context of a particular faith community – within the ethos of that community and hopefully with the sponsorship of that community in many practical ways. The fact is that in other European countries, even where a much wider choice exists than we have in many parts of this island, people still choose Church schools, and in several places this is a growing rather than a diminishing trend.

Parents have a basic human right, not simply one given under the law of the land to choose how their children will be educated. Many both within religious communities and those not so committed actually want a school that has a Church ethos, and reflects the ethos of particular Church. This ethos whilst seeking to cater for children from all backgrounds and promote an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for all viewpoints, nevertheless goes further and seeks to ensure that the traditions and morals of the Church inform the work and values of the overall life of the school. This is a positive statement about the environment in which the teaching takes place, but is not an attempt to force a particular set of beliefs on pupils. As it is put in our Diocesan policy statement:
“The Church of Ireland school is one where the traditions and teaching of that Church inform the position taken in regard to moral issues which arise in the teaching of secular subjects.”

While the other models of school patronage provide a forum for the study of various religious faiths, this is done in these models without the living experience of such faiths, separating the subject of religion from what it really is - a lived experience – that is with faith in God, to live a life informed by Christian values and traditions.

In a church school, such values as honesty, justice, civic responsibility, as well as faith in God, which are rooted in Biblical teaching, are incorporated by the school in such a way that students have the opportunity to grow into them outside the classroom, as well as within. The religious affiliation of a school determines its ethos in this way, and not just its actual programme of religious education.

Religious belonging is expressed in denominational terms, however ecumenical one is, and the Church school has a particular role for many parents and children in this context. It is linked to a faith community, and this is recognised even by those who do not belong to that particular community.

Schools under the patronage of the Christian Churches would seem now to be in danger of becoming less significant in the planning of and provision of new schools, and less likely to be afforded the chance to develop than are other schools. This is seen generally, but more specifically in areas of growth. It was encouraging however in one instance in this diocese, in Balbriggan, to have an entirely new school under my patronage provided by the Department of Education and Science replacing a school that required extra space, and furthermore on a scale that will hopefully meet the needs of many who would value such a school, even if not belonging to the Church of Ireland.

It is not realistic in every parish or area to expect the Church of Ireland to offer patronage and management to a school far beyond the needs of the immediate area, and indeed of those seeking such a school. Furthermore, it is very important that the choice of a Church of Ireland school remains a real option in areas which could not sustain a sixteen teacher primary school. In catering for the pluralism of Irish Society, including its secular tendencies, it is not enough to provide a single model of patronage, a single type of school which would then be a non-religious school.

The Church of Ireland is not opposed to the variety of models of patronage that are emerging, but like the Roman Catholic Church, is insistent that in today’s Ireland, an Ireland in which though pluralistic and increasingly secular, there remains a real demand for, and justification for, schools under Church patronage. If we have been less outspoken that the Roman Catholic Church on this, it is not that we care any less, but simply that we could identify with almost everything being said so ably by the educational spokespersons of the Roman Catholic Church. The only difference is that a majority Church and a minority Church face slightly different issues with regard to size, and in relation to the particular needs of a locality.

At this point I would make a particular plea that in maintaining the smaller schools of whatever patronage that recognition is afforded to the fact that a school with less than the full number of separate class teachers is a school with a teaching Principal. The daily administrative load, to say nothing of crisis management, on these individuals makes the post of Principal in such schools an unenviable task – and the result is that it is increasingly difficult to persuade anybody to apply for such posts. This is a matter that must be addressed with some urgency by the Department of Education and Science and I know attention will be drawn to this later in our education debate.

Changes in the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion has been facing change in a very painful way of recent years. There are three issues that have become much entangled.

The first is that of human sexuality in general, but of same-sex relationships in particular. It must be recognised that the issue of such relationships varies tremendously from one culture to another, varying from total acceptance, underwritten by civil law to total prohibition underwritten by the death sentence. The issue then becomes as to what is the Christian witness in these different contexts.

This leads straight to the second issue which is the relationship of the Bible to the issue, and as to how the Bible is interpreted, and whether or not God calls the Church to take a different stance today in the light of new situations and new knowledge. The issue of the interpretation of Scripture is not new for the Anglican Communion, for it was this very issue that caused the first Lambeth Conference to be called in the nineteenth century.

The fact that these issues have been brought into sharp focus for the Anglican Communion then raised in a dramatic way the third issue of whether this was something that was going to strain to breaking point the bonds of affection holding the Churches of the Communion together – and for some it has already virtually done that.

It was in this context that the Lambeth Conference of 2008 was called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. My wife and I were privileged to attend this our third Lambeth Conference, and we are both grateful to the United Dioceses for the practical way in which they helped us to be there. I can also say that this is undoubtedly our last ten-yearly Conference, and I am glad that though it was an exhausting experience that it has left a very positive feeling. In 1988, there was an experience of people listening to one another from all corners of the world as we faced difficult issues. In 1998, there was a very difficult atmosphere, as many resisted listening to one another and simply seemed anxious to vote one another down.

In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury approached the Conference in an entirely new way. It opened with three days of prayer and retreat which he led, sharing something of his own great spiritual depth and insight. The Conference seemed more rooted in the Bible Studies than ever before, though they were nothing novel for such a Conference, but they did prove very relevant.

The special thing about this Conference was the honesty with which people spoke, the sincerity with which they listened, and seemed to come to understand each other’s difficulties, and to understand above all that those of differing viewpoints were motivated in each case by a sense of seeking to be obedient to God.

The process in the Conference was not to vote on resolutions in a parliamentary or even synodical fashion, but to seek to achieve something of a common mind – and behind all discussions was a process of listening, in an attempt to discern such a common mind.

The Conference was greatly facilitated by an excellent Conference Secretary in the person of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Canon Kenneth Kearon, one of our own diocesan clergy.

The issue of human sexuality was not a matter for decision at the Lambeth Conference. Instead it was recognised by most that we did not wish to revisit the 1998 Resolution 1:10 which restated the traditional position on same sex relationships, but had urged an ongoing listening on the issue. There also seemed to be a strong feeling that there must be a moratorium for the present on the provision of rites for same-sex blessings, and the ordination to the episcopate of those in such relationships. This was very painful for some, and for others absolutely essential.

We talked much in both our Bible Studies and in our discussions about the ways in which we hear and understand and interpret Scripture. A firm affirmation emerged as to the centrality of Scripture. This is something we need to realise more clearly in the Church that those who interpret Scripture in a different manner from the way that we do are not to be dismissed as unfaithful Anglicans. Everybody interprets Scripture in that few would impose many of the laws in the Holiness Code in Leviticus, but rather say that they made sense in their particular context. Few Christians nowadays insist that women wear hats in worship or keep silent in church. Biblical interpretation is to be undertaken with great care in a spirit of prayer and listening. The Lambeth experience brought home the fact that the same Scriptures are often heard quite differently in different times and places. I quote the statement of the Irish bishops on this issue made some five years ago – in which we agreed:

To affirm the centrality and authority of the Scriptures for all Christian discourse.
To recognise that the interpretation of Scripture is itself an area of divergence among Christians.
To hold that the study of Scripture must also engage with the God-given gifts of the cumulative insights of the Christian tradition, and of human reason.

But this of course leads to the third issue – namely how can Anglicans hold together amidst this complexity. The difficulties thrown up by the first two issues have ever since the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire thrown the Anglican Communion into confusion. Some have seen the differences that emerged over this issue as “Church dividing”, others are very disturbed but patient, and others have been rather cavalier about the whole issue.

The Episcopal Church in the United States were told in advance that the consecration of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship would cause a major upset, but they went ahead within the Canon law of their own Church, disregarding the Anglican Communion as a whole. The period since has seen increasing polarisation and African Churches ordaining bishops to minister in dioceses in America without the consent of the local church. The Lambeth Conference called for this to cease – and for the moratorium to include not only same sex blessings and ordinations of bishops in such relationships, but also interventions across Provincial and Diocesan boundaries.

It is in this context that the concept of an Anglican Covenant emerged, actually in the Windsor Report. The idea is that Anglican Provinces throughout the world, recognising that they have been held together by what are often termed “Bonds of Affection” and four instruments of Communion: The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference, The Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, now need something more explicit. The Covenant Design Group is drawn from over the whole Anglican Communion and on this I have been serving. We are seeking to produce a Covenant which will affirm what we hold together as Anglicans, make explicit the commitments that we must make to one another to remain in Communion, and perhaps more controversially express the consequences of not observing such commitments. It is a very difficult exercise because of the emphasis that we all put on the independence of each Church within the Anglican Communion, but the resounding message of the Lambeth Conference was that we must find ways of remaining together.

You will have read reports that a large number of bishops did not attend the Lambeth Conference. This is true, but it can be exaggerated. Of well over eight hundred bishops invited, fewer than two hundred refused to attend, but in addition, there were also the usual small number of vacant dioceses, bishops not fit to travel and prevented for personal reasons. But of those who refused, at least sixty percent of these were from one Province, and most of the rest were from neighbouring Provinces, where the Primate refused to allow them to attend. The numbers of Anglican represented by these bishops is also grossly exaggerated as numbers are counted differently in different parts of the world – for instance in America, nobody is counted if they are not actually a registered member of a local congregation, and in other parts people are counted simply because they belong to a local community that is officially Anglican.

The sad thing however about this non-participation is that it meant that those who did not attend were not able to experience the healing work of the Holy Spirit that was undoubtedly present at the Lambeth Conference. Ways of reaching out to one another from all quarters are being sought and found. What is essential is that Provinces and dioceses do not back themselves into the corner of separation, or even of new alignments, but remain determined to seek a way forward together under God.

Changes in the United Dioceses

The changes in the United Dioceses that I want to speak about are mainly in relation to personnel. However there is one matter that I wish to stress to you all in the parishes that I have mentioned before that is now becoming urgent – namely the provision of curacies. We are of course the largest diocese in the Republic of Ireland, and more significantly we include most of the largest parishes. Dublin and Glendalough has always been the place providing most of the training parishes in the Republic for curates-assistant. It is essential that training parishes are provided in the Republic and not only in Northern Ireland where there are striking differences.

This United Dioceses is producing a large number of ordinands – at the present time we have ten in full-time training and a further seven in part-time with more going for selection shortly. As curacies become vacant – parishes suggest a pause before re-appointing, or tell me that they have decided to have a youth worker, or that they have some building programme on hand, and other very worthy reasons. However the need for clergy remains great, but the problem is finding parishes for them to begin their ministry. The diocese has in the past recognised the financial difficulties, and has in place a system of assistance which can be called upon. The training of junior clergy must be a real priority and I trust that Select Vestries will make this a priority. I congratulate Taney Parish, in which we are gathered for their willingness to consistently take on two curates, and sometimes even more, and not only does the parish benefit greatly, but so also does the wider church including our own dioceses. I will very shortly approach parishes directly that will be challenged to provide a curacy.