Posted Sunday 9 March 2008
Bishop Idris’ charge, or keynote speech, to the Diocesan Synod.
Brothers and Sisters,
Some months ago all the church leaders in Scotland were invited to sign up for a short course on Conflict Transformation – not management and not resolution but Transformation. Together with two of my brother bishops I signed up for this three day course then purchased the book – The Human Face of the Church by Sarah Savage and Eolene Boyd Macmillan.
The course has proved helpful and I hope that we may in the course of this year arrange at least for one of the authors to do some workshops in the Diocese. I mention this because I want to quote from parts of the book in this Charge.
“Can the church turn aside from its apparent descent into conflict between its various groups? Churches can change and to reach the unchurched today the church needs to present a less hierarchical face. How this will work out depends on the denomination. In the Church of England for example with the orders of Bishop Priest and Deacon as empowerment becomes the norm so the social distance between Bishop and Priest and Priest and Deacon becomes less and so communication is more direct and dialogic. As social distance increases then so will indirect communication such as rumour and hearsay.
“Sharing power requires the organisation to provide adequate training and channels of communication without which people are just set up to fail. Honesty flexibility and acceptance of errors need to be woven into the fabric of the organisation. This is bound to lead to conflict… and to the opportunity to grow spiritually.”
This is a good starting point because it draws together a number of issues of which I am very aware as I take part in discussions and plans to shape the church for a future that is still unclear. I don’t think many of us here today can have escaped these considerations in our Vestries and regional councils.
Here is a sharper focus to help us recognise the place we are at.
“Change is needed. A recent list of attendance from churches in one geographical area of the UK showed attendances of ten or less. The same list stated the amount of money needed to operate each of these churches and the average weekly collection. To keep the churches open ten times the amount would be needed than they were already giving. How are four people going to give ten times more than they already commit? When you have fewer and fewer people shifting the churches understanding of leadership from one omnipotent leader to collaborative leadership is unavoidable, as is the understanding of how decisions are reached. Of course, being authoritative does not mean you are not empowering – Jesus showed many examples of that fact but identifying the best decision-making process for the situation is part of the role of leader.”
My question is whether we are making preparations for any of this? The examples are taken from outside Scotland – I have no particular congregation in mind, but we are not exempt entirely from the anxieties about the future. If, as the authors suppose, change is inevitable, if the church is to continue, then are we adequately preparing people for this or not? Is TISEC giving our students the right tools with which to know about styles of leadership and how to choose the appropriate one. If Vestries are to share more in making decisions then are we supporting vestry members to help them to take up an increasing role. And, as change comes and stipendiary clergy presently in ministry have to take on different tasks of leadership what are we doing to prepare them for those new tasks of supervision.
All organisation needs structure which in our church is described as Order which is part of our motto “Apostolic Order“ but that order has to offer and work to create what in some disciplines would be described as a culture of learning. In other words not to be content just to be as we are, but to be open to the question “is there another way to do this “ “ can what we have be even better”.
Many congregations have experienced the renewal that comes through facing these questions –some of them through Mission 21 or through Cursillo, or some other form of Review.
In these few hours when we gather together as Diocese we shall be considering a number of issues that border on this major concern.
Why introduce more freedom for Charges to form themselves in different ways as units of mission – because we are being overtaken by change and need the freedom to adapt. By removing some of the anxieties caused by working a system that was created for a different world we release our energy to be concerned for the world. But adaptation cannot be by imposition. I know that it is no good at all the Bishop or the Staff Group or anyone else trying to tell a congregation what they must do. These choices must be made after informed discussion and prayerful reflection and be the choice of the congregation. But not to allow the freedom of that discussion to take place – to rule out new possibilities is frankly an option that we cannot afford to contemplate and the discussion of it has to include all.
We need to learn where to focus our energies and our resources. Clergy who are stipendiary need to know how their ministry is likely to be used by the church in the years ahead and those who are offering for ministry need to know to what they are about to commit themselves and their families. Non-stipendiary clergy need to be valued and also supported in learning how their offerings can be dove-tailed and built into a collaborative way of leadership. Readership requires a higher profile in our church and a strengthening of numbers. And Lay learning as it is now described requires of us that everyone is offered the opportunity to equip themselves to share in the life of the church at whatever level with a degree of confidence and competence.
Following Christ is a serious business - it always was, but today the demands to do it in a way that commends the faith to others is even more the experience of Christians throughout Europe.
In order to equip ourselves to carry out this task we accept that we need help.
The Ministry Advisory Group led by Peter Potter has done an exemplary job in getting us this far – now they are saying that something more is required.
Maureen McGlashan has pioneered a training programme for the continuous training of clergy but her conclusion is that we need to give better resourcing to this and that it is so urgent that it requires something more intentional from the Diocese. And as we work to understand the aspirations of the Journey of the Baptised we need to guard against overlooking the needs of Lay Learning.
So we are looking again at seeking support through the work of a Ministry Development Officer. The appointment of one person cannot by itself bring about the kind of change that we have been speaking about. That requires a shift on the part of the Diocese at every level.
The changes that are demanded quite often induce in me a level of discomfort and of panic and if I am honest, I quite frequently wish we didn’t have to concern ourselves with them.
But we must; and I have every confidence that the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway can respond to the challenge and give a lead to the rest of the Episcopal Church as we have so often done in the past. We have the greatest pool of resources among the members of our congregations can we now draw on those resources in order to shape the Diocese to respond more readily to God’s mission in a changing world. We are charged as a Synod to find a positive answer to that question.
+Idris
Category: Bishop Idris, Diocesan Synod
