Page 61 - The Church of Ireland Apologetic for Mission?

elements come together: mission and leadership.91
The Commission was saying something very simple: mission should be central to what the Church of Ireland does, and that bishops have a key role in this. This is borne out by the promises made at each Service of Consecration, as already noted. In the words of one interviewee “Bishops should take a lead as the brokers of mission in the dioceses”.
In the same report the Commission noted a significant obstacle lying in the way of this, “Episcopal ministry has become overloaded with extraneous functions that must be carried out but not necessarily by bishops”.92 In other words bishops were loaded with so many other functions, inevitably draining time or energy for leading in mission.
There are echoes of Stephen Covey’s maxim, “The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities ... The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing”. If, as the Commission suggests, the overload of “extraneous functions” stands in the way of this we look forward to how its future work will unfold.
How can bishops be ‘brokers’ of mission in the Church of Ireland and in their own dioceses? They can do so:
a. By being a catalyst for the promotion of mission in all its facets within the Church of Ireland.
The Hard Gospel process, addressing sectarianism and living constructively with difference, has an important
lesson in this regard. What is important to note from that process is that an imprimatur that came at institutional level from the Church of Ireland changed things profoundly: it became safe and legitimate to discuss the painful issues of sectarianism and living with difference. When there is such an institutional endorsement of a priority within the Church of Ireland then all sorts of possibilities appear.
91 p386 92 p388
b. By embracing Jerry Greenfield’s contention that the key role of leadership is to tell your own people the truth about the ways things are on the ground, thus recognising reality as it is and not as we would wish it, or imagine it used to be.
c. By facilitating a conversation and promoting mission in their own dioceses.
d. By ensuring that mission priorities set
by their dioceses have appropriate structures and resources to allow them to move beyond mere aspiration.
e. By facilitating mission-minded churches in their own dioceses.
f. Bybeingclearastowheretheystandon mission, regarding their own passion and drive. As suggested by one interviewee it is about “fleshing out what is God’s perspective ... if you don’t bring God’s perspective with passion you just bring your own or culture’s”.
Ultimately bishops are responsible for their own dioceses. This suggests that facilitating a conversation and promoting mission in that context will be their most effective role. However, the House of Bishops also has an undeniable role at a denominational level.
Perhaps there is something to be learnt from the process around the Church of Ireland Mission Statement in 2007, namely:
a. That being able to articulate and coalesce around a Mission Statement for the Church of Ireland was a significant success.
b. That the Mission Statement was used effectively in the process of transition of what has now become the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. In other words, it was helpful in setting a context for effective action in the crucial area of ministerial training.
c. That the subsequent failure of the Mission Statement to noticeably shape other action illustrates the need for stated priorities to be accompanied
61