| Friday 17th October, 2008 You are here: Home - 17th October 2008 Index Page - 17th October 2008 Editorial |
Editorial
Mission Statement Begs Questions
The recent publication and distribution of a mission statement by the House of Bishops, clearly intended as enunciating the mission priorities for the Church of Ireland, raises two basic questions - first, regarding the statement itself, and second, regarding the procedure.
The statement says that the Church must fulfil a range of goals: acknowledge that worship is humanity’s "primary purpose"; offer worship that articulates truth and "evokes holy beauty"; ensure that its worship is rooted in the faith once delivered, but is never "static"; pray that it may be "magnetically" attractive, energizing and informing the "building of the kingdom"; rejoice that through its worship countless individuals form one body in Christ; strive to live in unity and peace within itself and with "the whole family of God"; model "respectful relations with humanity and the whole created order"; develop "common life and action" with other Christian traditions; work for greater mutual understanding with those of "other faiths and none"; engage compassionately with the world and society "in all its rich variety of need and opportunity"; be both "disciples and discipling", as "perpetual learners in the school of Christ", as its members "strive to teach and serve others"; and daily and energetically "embody and proclaim" the values of the Kingdom "for whose coming we long".
The statement continues: "The Church of Ireland, as an authentic part of the universal church of God, is called to develop growing communities of faith, in and through which the Kingdom of God is made known, and in which the whole people serve together as followers of Jesus Christ for the good of the world to the Glory of God. In the power of the Spirit, our mission requires us to order our contemporary worship and life in a manner that nurtures growth, promotes unity and liberates us for service in the world that is God’s."
What strikes one about all of this (and there is more than the above in the mission statement) is that no one could take issue with any of the priorities set forth, but that, at the same time, the document is just so overwhelming in its scope and abstract language that one wonders just what is to become of it.
The three highlighted themes - growth, unity and service - are important and memorable ones, yet they are subject to quite wide interpretation. So, for example, some have been pointing out that ‘growth’ is not just about numbers, but also, inter alia, about depth of spirituality or social involvement. These are quite valid perspectives, but what focus is then left to the term ‘growth’? Similar observations could be made about unity and service.
So, the three leitmotifs in the mission statement are broad themes and, in so far as the statement expounds them, it does so by raising a complex range of thoughts. Moreover, if one wants to be theological about it, the statement is lacking in full Trinitarian terminology; while it speaks of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Father is omitted. It is also surprising that a mission statement does not contain the word ‘Gospel’. Considering the document as a whole, if one gets to grips with it at all, one is left quite simply feeling overloaded by a nonetheless undoubtedly worthy effort.
The second question that arises concerns procedure. It appears to us that the deliberation, production and distribution of this document by the House of Bishops is in conflict with the Constitution of the Church of Ireland. Ch. 1, Part 1, Para. 2 of the Constitution requires that the House of Bishops and the House of Representatives deliberate and transact business together, except as is provided for in the Constitution. However, there is no provision in the Constitution for the House of Bishops to take such an initiative as the one under consideration here. Of course, bishops rightly give spiritual leadership, but decisions about priorities for the Church as a whole, not least in order to be truly owned by the Church as a whole, should be taken by the Church as a whole, with the authority of the General Synod. The bishops have made presentations about their emerging mission statement, but receiving presentations and making decisions are two entirely different things.
It is sometimes argued that the bishops at times meet for business, but not as the House of Bishops. However, such an argument would raise many questions. In any case, while the bishops are naturally free to associate and to confer with one another, the Constitution does not provide for any business meetings of the bishops on their own, other than the House of Bishops. The historic polity of the disestablished Church of Ireland places a very considerable emphasis indeed on the partnership in Church governance among bishops, clergy and laity. It is important that the Church of Ireland should not lose this traditional Protestant episcopal and synodical ethos by default because we could all end up with a very, very different kind of Church.
Earlier this year (Gazette, 11th January) we drew attention to the fact that in 2004 the bishops established a Church of Ireland Bishops’ Advisory Commission on Doctrine, to report to the House of Bishops, but we also questioned that procedure from a constitutional perspective. With respect, we do so again with regard to the House of Bishops’ mission statement.