The Church Of Ireland General Synod 1999

REPORT 1999

1. MOTION

   At the meeting of the Standing Committee in June 1998 the following motion was proposed by Canon Paul Colton (Dublin), seconded by Canon Michael Burrows (Cork, Cloyne and Ross) and unanimously adopted:

   "That whereas it is desirable to consider the need for reform of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, the Standing Committee of the General Synod

   1. now decides to take the initiative in considering reform of the Synodical Structures and Synodical methods of the Church of Ireland and in initiating general debate about such reform at the meeting of General Synod in 1999;
   2. starts to undertake a full review of present structures of General Synod including inter alia Chapter One of the Constitution of the Church of Ireland (taking into account developments arising from the work of the Commission on Episcopal Needs, the Standing Orders of the General Synod, the Standing Orders of Standing Committee and including a paper on the subject previously submitted to Standing Committee by JLB Deane);
   3. establishes a working group to pursue these objectives;
   4. requests the working group to make an interim report to it at its January meeting; and
   5. that the following be asked (having already given their agreement) to serve on the Working Group:

Bishop John Neill, Bishop of Cashel and Ossory
Mr Denzil Auchmuty
Ms Valerie Beatty
Ms Claire Burrows
Canon Paul Colton
Mr Jim Getgood
Dean Thomas Moore
Lady Brenda Sheil
Ms Kate Turner
One of the Honorary Secretaries of the General Synod
and with power to co-opt up to three other members.

The group met on three occasions. At the first meeting Canon Paul Colton was elected Chairman/ Secretary. The Venerable Gordon Linney was appointed by the Honorary Secretaries of the General Synod to represent them and served until his retirement as an honorary secretary of the General Synod.

INTRODUCTION

The topic of reform of the General Synod – its size, time of meeting, standing orders, character and much more – has been raised in the past in the Church of Ireland, and is arising with ever greater frequency. There is a feeling abroad that worthy and vital as our existing synodical structures are, nonetheless, they are straining under the pressure of changes of the times in Church and society. There is a sense at every level of Church life that the time is now right to pave the way for the implementation of appropriate changes and modifications to our existing synodical system which would better facilitate the ministry and mission of the Church of Ireland in our time. Such a review and recommendations would result in a stronger and more proactive synodical process, and most important, one which is more accessible to all members of the whole Church of Ireland.

2. BACKGROUND

   This discussion is not a new one. It was of initial concern during the General Convention (1870). It was raised again in Administration 1967. In 1983 a bill requesting a realignment of the diocesan representation on General Synod in proportion to the population of the respective dioceses was not granted a first reading. In 1994 Mr JLB Deane (now Canon JLB Deane), Lay Honorary Secretary prepared a paper for Standing Committee (which was subsequently included in its report to General Synod) on the subject. At General Synod in 1998 a motion seeking the setting up of a group to review representation at General Synod was rejected (judging by the tenor of the speeches) on the grounds, it seems, that its terms of reference were too narrow, and that a more all-embracing review was being sought.

Disestablishment

At the time of disestablishment the constitutional issues which aroused most intense debate at the General Convention (1870) were the interrelated ones of the position to be assigned to bishops in the future governing of the Church and the role of the laity, whose financial support in the wake of disestablishment, was crucial. The 2:1 balance in favour of the laity was provided for on the grounds that the clergy would be more readily able to attend. It might be said that the Constitution presumed a leisurely laity which did exist in the post-Disestablishment age. The most hotly debated question concerned the method and practice of the legislative body.

Administration 1967

The section of this report that dealt with the General Synod favoured a review of the size and representation on General Synod arising from the changes in population and the pattern of deployment of clergy. It was recommended, however, that such a review should not be based on the population of dioceses, and in particular that the existing ratio of distribution of seats should be maintained. The unsuitability of a mid-week meeting was pointed out. The small size of the venue, the poor attendance on the third day and the idea of meeting from time-to-time in Belfast were some of the important matters addressed. The main proposal – that there should be an overall reduction in the size of the General Synod – was subsequently criticised by the Standing Committee. However, in its response to Administration 1967 Standing Committee concurred with the view that the ratio of distribution of seats should indeed be maintained.

Bill of 1983

In 1983 there was an attempt to introduce a bill providing for representation at General Synod proportionate to the size of the dioceses. Leave was not even granted for the introduction of the bill.

Report by JLB Deane 1994

In 1994 Canon JLB Deane, Lay Honorary Secretary, made a submission to Standing Committee which was appended to its report to General Synod. This affirmed the primary role of the General Synod as a legislative and administrative body. Canon Deane’s recommendations included the advice that the size of the House of Representatives should be reduced. This would increase option on venue, make a residential session and payment of expenses possible. It was also recommended that the quorum should be increased, and that the allocation of seats in a reduced House of Representatives should be on a ratio similar to 1870.

METHODOLOGY

The working group met on three occasions for plenary discussion. Most of the work of the group was done by preparatory study and papers prepared for discussion. The Bishop of Cashel and Ossory, and Lady Sheil prepared papers on The Character and Function of the General Synod. Mr. Jim Getgood, Dean Tom Moore and Mr. Denzil Auchmuty prepared papers on Size and Representation. Ms Kate Turner and Canon Paul Colton submitted papers on The Content and Schedule of the General Synod. Mrs Claire Burrows submitted a paper on the history of the emergence of the General Synod after disestablishment, and together with Mrs Valerie Beatty undertook a comparative study of synodical structures within some other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Archdeacon Gordon Linney consulted with the Honorary Secretaries of the General Synod and made a submission on their behalf.

3. THE CHARACTER AND FUNCTION OF THE GENERAL SYNOD

The Church is the community (koinonia) living in the power of the Holy Spirit engaging in the encounter between the faith of the ages and the claims of living in the contemporary world. As koinonia the Church is not a secular democracy, nor is it hierarchy, but rather is attentive to dispersed levels of authority. Synodical government is a good outworking of this tension.

The Church of Ireland is an episcopal Church which has the diocese as its basic unit. A bishop acting within the council of the presbyters of his diocese is not deprived of the authority given by his/her ordination to the episcopate, but (s)he is recognising the authority of all those who have been ordained as presbyters of the church in the diocese. It is this understanding that opens itself most easily into synodical structures at diocesan level. The fact that a diocese has within its synodical structure the bishop, the clergy and the laity reflects the diverse nature of the diocese and the dispersed sources of authority within it. This dispersed authority is seen in our existing structures: first in the slightly ambivalent role given to Bishops, and second, in the slight paradox of the General Synod as a provincial source of authority which is extra-diocesan.

As stated in the Preamble and Declaration adopted in the General Convention (1870) the General Synod "shall have chief legislative power…and such administrative power as may be necessary for the Church, and consistent with its episcopal Constitution".

As such, therefore, the General Synod may be rightly seen as the body designed to embody five main and essential characteristics:

1. a representative body
2. a unifying body
3. a legislative body
4. an administrative body
5. a debating forum

A REPRESENTATIVE BODY

It must be affirmed again and again that, as a representative body, the Church of Ireland is a Church of the whole island of Ireland. Furthermore, while holding together what elsewhere in the Anglican Communion would be treated as two provinces, sight must not be lost of the existence of two such historic ecclesial provinces: Armagh and Dublin. Above all it is crucial in this context that the General Synod remains truly representative of the whole Church of Ireland.

The General Synod is a forum representing the witness of the Church in all of Ireland. It cannot be truly representative in this way if it only reflects the number of registered vestrypersons in any given diocese. Of course there must be some distinction reflecting population. There must also be, however, a central recognition that the diocese itself is the basic unit of the Church, and this basic unit has its integrity whatever its size.

To these ends, the existing ratio of representation as established at the General Convention in 1870 is best maintained. This underlying principle should continue to apply even if the overall size of the House of Representatives were reduced.

Representation is not exclusively about reflecting the population or dioceses of the Church of Ireland. It is also of concern that the equilibrium of representation in other areas be examined: the balance of male and female representation, of lay and clerical and of young and old.

Perhaps too the time has come to ask whether there should be an ecumenical dimension to representation. Might there be a number of full members of General Synod from other designated churches appointed for a triennium by those churches to participate in proceedings of General Synod? They could contribute to debates as observers at General Synod but without the right to vote. Such an ecumenical step would be a more profound representation of our ecumenical resolve and commitment than even our existing large allocation of finance and voluntary work currently reflects.

A UNIFYING BODY

In a rapidly changing and pluralist Ireland, the General Synod as a unifying body embraces the whole diversity of the Church of Ireland. It comprises Christians from two political jurisdictions. It draws the dioceses to the centre and sensitises that centre to the concerns of the local Church. The General Synod has the potential to transcend the marked divisions in our society and to incorporate more fully representatives of all: urban/rural, east/west, rich/poor, employed/unemployed, different regions and industrial /agricultural.

4. A LEGISLATIVE BODY

   The parliamentary system, properly implemented and effectively used, is comprehensible, effective and above all, fair and equitable. Not only is it a way of transacting necessary business, but it also ensures that ours remains an orderly Church with adequate checks and balances, transparency and accountability being maintained.

The current methods of the General Synod, based on this parliamentary system need, however, to be adjusted. A process of re-education for all members is required. An on-going initiation for new members of synod should be considered. Standing Orders could be fine-tuned to avoid the frustrations that occasionally arise and the moments when the unanimous will of synod is sometimes thwarted by procedure. There may also be scope, within the principle of a parliamentary system itself, to simplify procedures. The key element in any debate on legislation should always remain the principle of the bill and not the intricacies of procedure. Perhaps routine housekeeping legislation, well-explained and notified in advance, could be voted upon without debate (a "quick" bills procedure).

It is through the parliamentary system that the links with the dioceses might be strengthened. For example some special bills, having been notified to General Synod in the first year, might be referred to Diocesan Synods. If such an alteration in the legislative process is to be meaningful it must, however, be accompanied by a serious attempt to decentralise much of the committee work of the Church.

AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY

The parliamentary system with attendant committees, working groups and select committees, if properly implemented, provides again a system that is thorough, fair and effective and can enable the synod to discharge the business before it.

The existing committee system has shortcomings but it cannot be disbanded in such a way as to jeopardise the essential work needing to be done. In line with the report undertaken by Canon JLB Deane in 1993/1994 it is clear that various administrative matters need to be addressed. These and others include: the number of committees which report annually at every General Synod; the level of attendance at committees; the longevity of the existence of committees; overlaps between the work of some committees; the inclusiveness of representation on committees (e.g. clerical/lay; male/female, and young/old); and allocation of time at General Synod for adequate reporting and scrutiny of a committee’s work.

The principle of subsidiarity, whereby what is best done as locally as possible in an organisation should be so done, is an important one for the Church to hold. It would affirm again the diocese as the basic unit of the Church and accord due recognition to the associated importance of the parishes and local leadership, lay and clerical, among the people of God. A lack of due recognition to the principle of subsidiarity breeds inertia, and creates the assumption that someone else somewhere else will take responsibility for the vision and the carrying out of the mission.

The fact that the General Synod appoints Boards for almost every matter of concern and for almost every aspect of the Church’s ministry actually lets the dioceses "off the hook". As a result, much that could be done locally is stifled by the fact that a central committee is already undertaking this work, and reporting only to General Synod. Serious consideration might be given to the replacing of many of these central committees with short term working groups, appointed by the General Synod, but reporting to the Diocesan Synods if at all possible. The reporting to dioceses would have the effect of bringing much specialist work very close to the parochial life of the Church, and would strengthen the links and involvement with the basic unit: the diocese.

At each session of the General Synod there is a demanding agenda of tasks to be fulfilled; bills read, debated and passed; reports introduced and received; motions proposed and discussed; speeches to hear and presentations to be made. Standing Committee would be well served by the support of a small co-ordinating committee. Such a group could deal effectively with routine items and free the Standing Committee to be a proactive, policymaking body between the meetings of the General Synod. It should clearly facilitate a greater measure of liaison and co-ordination between the separate workings of the Standing Committee, the Representative Church Body and the Board of Education. It would be clearly advisable that the senior staff from Church of Ireland House should have a more active presence in the meetings of Standing Committee. The current situation, which requires the staff in attendance to seek permission to speak, is a waste of professional resources.

 A DEBATING FORUM

Although sight may be lost of the General Synod as a debating forum in the midst of the micro-detail of procedure and administrative concerns and some repetitive speeches, such a function is to be affirmed and nurtured. The General Synod provides the opportunity for discussion, mutual learning and affirmation where all the aspects and concerns of a living and relevant church are presented.

Consideration might be given in introducing issues of major importance to the Church (e.g. theological issues) in a year prior to the proposal of a substantive motion on the subject by organising a set-piece debate on the topic. The introduction of a major subject (e.g. in the past – the ordination of women) with introductory speakers, and speakers on both sides of an argument would ensure that most of the substantive issues are formally raised, equal numbers of speeches heard for and against, and all of that before the synod itself has to engage in its own debate and vote on a proposition the following year.

The role of the presidential address has become unclear within the overall framework of purposes of the General Synod. It could most usefully set the scene for the synod’s debates. It might be set in the context of worship, or if retained in the General Synod’s timetable and circulated in advance, might be followed by a debate on the issues raised or a question time.

The nature of a venue and ancillary matters such as seating arrangements, access to the podium, levels of attendance, allocation of time to and use of it by speakers and timetable all impinge greatly on the relative success of the General Synod as an adequate debating forum for the Church.

 LEARNING FROM OTHER PLACES

When the General Convention of 1870 set about framing a Constitution for the Church of Ireland it started with the advantage that the Episcopal churches of the USA, Canada and New Zealand had already faced the challenge. Their newly drafted constitutions were conveniently available in a single volume. This sets an historical precedent for the useful comparative study undertaken by this working group.

A detailed questionnaire was sent to the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church in Wales, the Anglican Church of Australia and the Anglican Church in New Zealand concerning their own structures, practices and experiences.

The topics covered were: legal structures; membership of General Synod; tenure of office; size of representation; total church population; Election procedure; payment/ reimbursement of expenses; conducting business of the General Synod; voting procedures; debating procedures; format of agenda; who formulates the agenda?; quorum; resolutions procedure; bills procedure; media communication; standing orders; the structures of the General Synod; chairing; presidential address; seating arrangements; duration of the General Synod; social activities; frequency of meetings; the role of liturgy in the proceedings and location.

The results of the comparative study are tabled in Appendix One.

 LEARNING FROM HISTORY

Any review of the pattern of representation and size of the General Synod must take account of the rationale behind the present schema set up at the General Convention in 1870. Scrutiny of the Journal of the General Convention and of the relevant papers in the archives at the RCB library make available important information. The present size of the General Synod was decided on the basis of one clerical representative for every ten priests in the Church of Ireland at that time (i.e. 1:10). The associated principle of two lay representatives to every clerical representative (i.e. 2:1) was similarly established. On this basis there were 216 clerical and 432 lay representatives. As an aside it is interesting to note that were the same principle to be applied today there would only be approximately 50 clerical representatives and 100 lay representatives with an overall House of Representatives of 150 members. Clearly this would neither be desirable nor acceptable. Neither the journal nor the papers fully reveal, however, the basis on which the subsequent allocation of seats to the individual dioceses was achieved.

5. AT THE EDGE OF THE GENERAL SYNOD

   The importance, in a small Church such as ours with a strong sense of common pilgrimage and koinonia, of events, meetings and gatherings on the edge of the meeting of the General Synod, should not be underestimated. In the right venue, with a General Synod of manageable size, and particularly in a residential session, the potential of fringe presentations, meetings and groups would be immense.

There could readily be room for or detailed presentations on aspects of a day’s theme; diocesan presentations; thematic presentations; a market place of ideas and resources; Bible studies; social events which facilitate greater exchange and work in small groups.

It is essential that such opportunities be seen as more than peripheral to the occasion of the General Synod.

 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the recommendations of the Working Group:

   (a) The Function of the Synod

• The function of the General Synod predominantly as a legislative and administrative is to be affirmed.
• The parliamentary procedures of the General Synod should be retained, but need to be stream-lined where possible, in order to facilitate the work of a living and relevant Church.
• Standing Orders of the General Synod and of Standing Committee should be reviewed.
• The bills procedure should be examined with a view, if possible, to its being clearly understood and accessible to all members.
• The possibility of occasional large Church conferences should be considered.

(b) Representation

• Any reallocation of seats in a General Synod reduced in size should be based on existing figures and the ratio established at the General Convention (1870), in such a way as to affirm the integrity of each diocese as a basic unit of the Church, but recognising nonetheless the demographic changes that have taken place in Ireland.
• It is essential to scrutinise patterns of representation at every level of Church life and to ensure, where possible, that all groups are adequately involved and represented: lay/clerical; male/female and young/old.
• The method of voting and election at every synodical level of the Church should be examined and reviewed in order to ensure that such a balanced representation is attained.
• In the same way consideration should be given to the associated questions of limiting the duration of membership and the age limits for membership of the General Synod.
• The Executive staff of the RCB should be given the right to speak at those meetings of General Synod and Standing Committee which they attend.
• Consideration should be given to the allocation of some seats to representatives of other churches as observer members of the General Synod with the right to speak.

   (c) Role and involvement of the Dioceses

• The links between the General Synod and each Diocese need to be strengthened (particularly if the General Synod were reduced in size) in such a way as to create a greater role and involvement for the dioceses and to bring the work of the Church at every level (locally and centrally) closer to one another.

   (d) Time of Meeting

• It is no longer appropriate for the General Synod to meet mid-week during working hours. It should meet predominantly at a weekend, perhaps from a Thursday evening/Friday morning to Sunday afternoon.

   (e) Type of Meeting

• A residential annual session of the General Synod would best facilitate the work of a modern and changing Church in a post-modern and ever-changing age.

   (f) Content and Schedule of the General Synod

• The centrality of worship should be affirmed and the use of worship could be a more creative and truly kerygmatic opportunity.
• The possibility of a "Question Time" should be pursued.
• The role of the Presidential Address should be examined. Perhaps it might be distributed in advance (as in New Zealand), and following delivery, be the occasion of general debate or a question time.
• Consideration should be given to the potential of theme or set-piece debates with no motions but generating preparatory discussion for future motions.
• Business should be divided into sessions with common themes.
• Consideration should be given to the rotation of responsibility for chairing the General Synod (with the Archbishop of Armagh or his nominee remaining as presider).
• There should be an introductory session for new members of General Synod and supporting literature.
• Reports contained in the book of reports should have a preamble/précis of no more than 60 words.
• All committees should report attendance records.

A possible schedule for a General Synod at a weekend is included as Appendix Two.

   (g) Payment of Expenses

• Travel and residential costs of members of General Synod should be paid.

   (h) Size

• To the end that recommendations (b) to (g) and (i) may best be attained the overall size of the House of Representatives should be reduced by approximately 50% - one half.

 CONCLUSION

In his report included in the Journal of the General Synod in 1994 Canon JLB Deane came to the what he himself described as the "depressing conclusion" that his suggestions would result in "one hitting one’s head against a wall", and he reckoned as Nil the chances of the General Synod agreeing to a reduction of its size to 300.

Perhaps the problems now are greater or more self-evident. Certainly the appreciation of the challenges and dilemmas arising from failure to modify the existing synodical structures is more widely recognised. Is it not time for the whole Church of Ireland and the General Synod in particular, to grasp radically the consequences of the presupposition of the motion that gave rise to this working group of Standing Committee on Synodical Structures that:

"…it is desirable to consider the need for reform of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland"?

 

 

APPENDIX ONE

RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY

Home | Latest Updates | Site Index | Search | Text only

Copyright © 1997-2007 Church of Ireland Central Communications Board

Contact us

Last update to this page was on 29 October, 2003