Bishops and dioceses are finally rebelling against the central control of decision making imposed by the Church Commissioners (and the Archbishops’ Council) upon them. At least that is the impression you might get from reading the Church Times this week.
Dioceses ready to take back purse strings from centre, Dr Gibbs tells Rochester synod
The Church Commissioners’ control over dioceses has been criticised by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, who has warned of “significant and unsustainable annual deficits”.
The announcement this weekend that his own diocese had been awarded £11 million from the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment (SMMI) Board did not deter Dr Gibbs from arguing that the increasing emphasis on grants “exacerbates the sense of control by the centre”.
“Everyone accepts that the Commissioners are brilliant at investing money and generating excellent returns,” he told his diocesan synod on Saturday. “But the reality is that the resources they now hold represent a significant net transfer not only of assets but also of financial control from the dioceses to the national Church, something which has become more and more evident over the last ten or so years.”
Note: Jonathan was unhappy with this account of his comments, and as a result the Church Times have revised the headline and subhead so it now reads:
Bishop of Rochester questions Church Commissioners’ control over dioceses
More work needed on Diocesan Finance Review, Dr Gibbs says
I cannot see any other changes in the article.
I think you, dear reader, can already seen some paradoxes even in the opening of this article. The comments made by Jonathan Gibbs are in the context of the ‘award’ (is this the right word?) of £11m from the SMMI Board for significant work in the diocese. If you read the full details of his address to Synod here, then you can see the fulsome enthusiasm that he shows about this; the later comments are not the main point, with the award being a mere aside.
I am delighted now to invite Matthew to join me to give us the latest news about the progress of the bid.
This is fantastic news and represents a wonderful achievement on the part of everyone concerned – our huge thanks and congratulations must go to all those who have worked so hard to put things together, mentioning especially, Claire Boxall, to whom we bid farewell at our last Synod, Vanessa Curtis, the Called to Grow Project Manager, Allie Kerr and of course Matthew himself…
The success of our bid is a huge vote of confidence in the strategy we have put together and a real endorsement of what was recognised to be a very carefully crafted and clearly evidence-based approach to growing the Church’s mission and ministry in this Diocese.
In these words, rather than a sense of winners and losers, there appears to be a strong sense of partnership and even affirmation of the diocesan strategy.
But we step into further paradoxes in the next paragraphs of the Church Times report.
His comments echo those of other bishops in recent months. In the General Synod last month, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, expressed frustration after time ran out for a debate on a motion from Hereford diocese calling on the Commissioners to transfer £2.6 billion of assets to diocesan stipend funds to support parish ministry (News, 31 January). Gloucester, Coventry, Bath & Wells, Blackburn, Chichester, and Lincoln diocesan synods had all passed motions in identical terms to Hereford’s.
But, as Jonathan Gibbs notes, ‘Everyone accepts that the Commissioners are brilliant at investing money and generating excellent returns.’ Would diocesan funds get the same returns on their assets? Certainly not. The ‘Hereford Motion’ is motivated by asking serious questions about the (unforeseen?) consequences of changes made in the 1997 transfer of pension liability from the Commissioners to the dioceses for new members of the pension scheme. At the time, action clearly needed to be taken—but the situation now has completely reversed, and the crisis is no longer with the Commissioners (as it was then) but in the dioceses:
In 1997 the Church Commissioners were facing the probable end of their historic role in funding parochial ministry and becoming “just” a pension fund in little over a decade. Their assets of £3.48bn were offset by an estimated pension liability of £2.2bn (63.2%), which was rising year on year. In 2020 the Church Commissioners have funds of £9.05bn offset by pension liabilities of “just” £1.48bn (16.3%). Pensions in payment are also now in decline. The issue of its pension commitments has all but disappeared from general discourse.
A decision which was needed at the time has not been reviewed, and similarly drastic action appears to be needed to address the reverse crisis in the present. But the Hereford motion, if asking the right question, seems to offer the wrong answer. If the problem was the transfer of pension liability, why not simply propose that the liability is moved back again in the other direction? That would provide immediate relief to diocesan finances, and would not compromise investment strategy.
Although the major issues here appear to be about financial management, the argument quickly moves to questions of power in decision making. Who is really in control? Who is leading the Church? Jonathan Gibbs expresses it in precisely these terms.
[T]he renewed and strengthened emphasis on SMMIB and the Diocesan Investment Programme, with resources going only to special projects approved by the Board, further exacerbates the sense of control by the centre.
That may have been a necessary adjustment at the time when the Strategic Development Fund was first set up, to reduce what was referred to as “subsidising decline” and to encourage a focus on promoting growth, but many of us feel that dioceses themselves are now much better placed and equipped to work out how and where the money would best be spent for the sake of mission locally.
Here is another paradox: the SMMIB award was to support the strategy developed by the diocese itself, and with the priorities that the diocese has set! In what sense is about ‘exercising control over decision making’?
I need to declare an interest here, as I am a member of the Archbishops’ Council (a misnomer which will soon be corrected with reorganisation) and therefore part of the structure which contributes to the SMMIB (though we do not scrutinise the Board’s decisions). The overall aim of AC is set out clearly:
The Council is a charity, set up in law to co-ordinate, promote, aid and further the work and mission of the Church of England. It does this by providing national support to the Church in dioceses and locally, working closely with the House of Bishops and other bodies of the Church.
And its goal reflect this:
- A Younger Church: To double the number of children and young active disciples in the Church of England by 2030.
- A More Diverse Church: To fully represent the communities we serve in age and diversity.
- Revitalise Parishes: A parish system revitalised for mission so churches can reach and serve everyone in their community.
- New Christian Communities: Creating 10,000 new Christian communities across the four areas of home, work / education, social and digital.
- Missionary Disciples: All Anglicans envisioned, resourced, and released to live out the five marks of mission in the whole of life, bringing transformation to the Church and world. All local churches, supported by their dioceses, becoming communities and hubs for initial and ongoing formation.
- Sustainability: A Church that cherishes God’s creation and leads by example in promoting sustainability.
- Safety and Dignity: A Church that affirms the dignity of all people by being a safe place for all, especially children and vulnerable adults.
In fact, Jonathan’s address to his diocesan synod moves on to the chief underlying issue: are our patterns of ministry and deployment actually sustainable in the longer term?
We are now awaiting final news on how the Diocesan Finance Review will affect the Diocese of Rochester, and we are hopeful that this will be beneficial in the short term.
But this will not address the longer-term question of the viability of diocesan finances in many parts of the country, and most crucially on the ability of dioceses to maintain the number of stipendiary clergy in parochial ministry, something to which we are deeply committed in the Diocese of Rochester.
The Diocesan Finance Review has been led by Carl Hughes, the director of the Finance Committee at AC. It involves a substantial increase in the amount released from the Commissioners to the dioceses; it includes a 30% increase in the Lower Incomes Community funding going directly to dioceses; and it includes tapered funding over five years to relieve immediate pressure from dioceses and give them time to restructure into sustainable patterns of ministry and funding in the long term. All this is needed, since diocesan deficits were expected to double from £29 million in 2022 to £62 million in 2024, and 23 dioceses hold less than three months’ cash reserves.
Rochester’s own numbers are an interesting case study. In the last decade, parish share (which they helpfully call ‘parish offer’) fell by 19%, but Sunday attendance fell by more than a third to 14,900. Since 2009, FTE stipendiary clergy numbers have fallen from 206 to 168, a loss of 20%—nearly matching the changes in giving, but not the fall in attendance. Jonathan is rightly committing the diocese to sustaining the number of clergy—the presence of stipendiary ministry intentional on seeing growth has been shown to be the most significant factor in seeing churches grow and people come to and grow in faith. But how can this be financed, and can it address the demographic factors, where congregations are shrinking simply because of their age profile, and those joining are not matching those being ‘promoted to glory’? Despite the ‘bounce back’ from the Covid catastrophe, there are still no signs that, nationally, the Church of England has reversed the consistent 3% decline per annum over the last 20 years.
At the level of national finance, there are three big questions. First, how much of the Commissioners’ assets should be distributed each year? Secondly, how should that happen? And thirdly, who decides?
For several years, I have argued that the Commissioners should not continue to grow their assets in real terms at all, but distribute all the surplus above inflation to the dioceses:
On what grounds, then, should any funds be held back from distribution this year in order to allow greater distributions in future? What level of assets are the Commissioners actually aiming for, after which they will say ‘We don’t need to grow any more; we will distribute all the real-terms growth in the fund to current ministry needs’?
If the Commissioners continue with their excellent investment performance, then we might expect long-term real-terms returns of 7% per year, which would amount to distributing around £700m a year, which after the pension contribution would be more that £500m to the dioceses and parishes.
Coincidentally (!) that is the amount now being proposed for distribution in the Diocesan Finance Review.
On what should this money be spent? Is the current split between LiNC funding and strategic investment the right way to go? To take Rochester’s example, what could you use £11m for? A ‘Save the Parish’ type approach would simply put the money back into local ministry without any strategic bells and whistles. According to the costing from the diocese’s last annual report (which is commendably clear, p 34) this money could buy 220-stipend years if there are no extra central costs, but more likely 150 (£11m/£73k). That would give you 15 stipendiary clergy for 10 years, or 30 for five years, or some other combination. Is that likely to see significant change in the overall attendance? And could the diocese find that number of pioneering, church planting, evangelistic clergy to deploy? I think the question is worth asking, but the answer is fairly clear.
The problem with taking that ‘simple’ STP approach is that it fails to address the illusions many have about the C of E being ‘a presence in every community’. Will Foulger, in his 2023 book Present in Every Place? addresses this brilliantly.
Presence in place must involve a sense of reciprocation; not just what is offered but also what is received, heard, felt and known. It is therefore about social capital: a church is present in place to extended as real capital in its place. If it is not this, then the concept of presence in place quickly loses any substantive meaning (p 88).
In other words, sticking a building and a vicar somewhere is a romantic illusion, and achieves nothing, unless this person is also building a faith community which is missionally engaged with its surrounding context. I suspect it is this which is precisely the goal of the diocesan strategy which has received the SMMIB funding. And without this engagement, central funding just becomes a buildings maintenance fund and a job creation scheme for clergy.
That question, of missional engagement, perhaps moves us on to the question underlying all these debates. Stuart Browning, vicar of Holy Trinity, Cambridge, expressed it like this on Facebook:
I’m not being melodramatic when I say that, personally, I think probably one of the Church of England’s greatest spiritual dangers is its wealth from historic assets (as with many Western mainline denominations). None of the most rapidly growing denominations in the UK have any meaningful historic assets, they rely on discipleship, missional vision and the generosity of their congregations—even in very deprived areas.
I’m not denying that faithful and faith-filled churches are greatly blessed by central grants or local assets & buildings, and use them wisely for the Kingdom. But something has gone toxic in the CofE’s bigger picture relationship with money and if left unchecked it leads to the death of dependency on God, faith, prayer, the need to convert and disciple people, and the accountability to normal congregation members who give to sustain the mission of the church. The same problematic dynamic Jonathan describes between Diocese and the Central Church, is also at work between churches and the wealthier Diocese.
Or, as Carl Hughes said in introducing the finance debate in Synod, this is primarily a spiritual issue and not a financial one.
If we cannot continue to agree together—not just between AC, the Commissioners, and the House of Bishops, but also within dioceses, and between dioceses and local churches—that the goal of our use of finance is to see people come to a living faith, and not merely preserve the structures of the institution, then we are lost.
(The image was generated using Bing following the brief ‘A small group of clergy in dog collars standing in front of crumbling church building.’ I left the dogs in the picture, as it is a lovely illustration of how stupid AI continues to be!)
I can’t help but agree with what you have said in this piece, except that I’m not convinced by the argument that dioceses are necessarily the best placed to know how to reverse the drop in church attendance . I noticed that in my own diocese – Bristol – there seems to have been an expansion in the appointment of administrative personnel at the centre (and I have to say mainly women) over the last few years. I could be wrong, of course, but any increase in bureaucracy in any organisation is a cause for concern and a failure to recognise where most hard work is being done; in the case of the Church, it’s at the parish level.
Yes, I would agree. I have written about that before, and wondered about including it here—but ran out of space! It is hinted at in Stuart’s comments…
Thanks Ian, much food for thought here. I completely get that the focus of any church community should be on outreach, community engagement, making and growing disciples, but the elephant in the chancel is… ancient buildings.
I am half-time Rector (and Rural Dean) in a rural benefice of eight villages with one PCC and local ‘friends’ groups in some of the villages. We have eight medieval buildings, and an average Sunday attendance of around 30, from an ER of 71. The PCC has just run out of reserves, and we have reduced our parish share contribution from £1900/month to £400/month for the foreseeable future, so we can pay insurance and utility bills. Parishioners who are able to, give generously, but were it not for the income from legacies at two of the churches we would be in even more dire straits financially.
We are researching the possibility of effectively abandoning one of our buildings, as the recent Quinquennial inspection revealed major expenditure required on the roof, which we have no way of funding; the only local income is from visitors’ donations in the wall box (£49.96 last year). There is no friends group, and only one person from that village ever joins our travelling congregation. I have neither the time nor energy to lead a fund-raising drive, or apply for grants for repairs, for a building that is only in use once every eight weeks in the summer. And of course there are seven others! I could give many similar examples from my Deanery.
I seriously believe there is an existential threat to the Church of England as we know it, particularly in rural areas. I don’t pretend to have any answers, but the financial burdens placed on local congregations are huge, and unsustainable. I’m desperately sad about what is happening to the church I’ve loved and served in ministry for over 30 years. I’d be surprised if it is still around in its current form, if at all, in another 30. So, no, Church of England ministry is not sustainable.
Dear David, thanks for this.
Yes, I agree that this is a massive issue for rural ministry. But is it about buildings, or about people?
The idea of maintaining a large building in which 30 people meet is slightly crazy—and this is at heart about sustainability of ministry. What would the people do if you closed six of the buildings, and the 240 people were invited to attend services in one of the remaining two…?
Perhaps David could clarify, but I think you have this wrong Ian – which is rather worrying. My experience of rural worship is that the “30” will be the total congregation, gathered together from the eight parishes, and there is one service a week in one of the eight buildings. Your mention of a potential “240” is not the case.
Oh I see. Yes, that is a disaster. If that figure is correct, then I would say that ministry in that area has already effectively ended.
Yes, bonkers as it is, we do maintain 8 buildings for a congregation of 30-ish. We are what I heard recently rather disparagingly called a ‘caravan church’. We have one service on a Sunday which rotates around 8 buildings in the summer, and five in the winter. Of the other three, one has no electricity or water, one has no heating, and the other is a long way from the rest, and on a very narrow Norfolk road that floods every time it rains heavily. Happily, nearly everyone will drive to wherever the service is; there are a handful who will only attend when it is in ‘their’ building. This, though, is unsustainable in another way – our diocesan bishop is the lead on the environment, so I suspect he has mixed feelings about the amount of energy used in moving the faithful around this big diocese on a Sunday morning.
I’ve done rural multi-parish with 3-4 services every Sunday in the past, and I’m grateful to about four incumbents ago for the pattern that we have here, which has been in place for a number of years, and can be managed on a half-time basis. But managed is the operative word. We do what we can – I preach what I intend to be a true Gospel (opinions may vary!), we run Open the Book in the two local schools, Lent and other discipling courses, special services at festivals and other times, which attract large numbers but don’t translate into anything more the rest of the year, despite our best efforts.
There are very faithful, committed Christian people in this benefice, who work incredibly hard to keep the whole enterprise on the road. I’ll be 70 next year (and high time for retirement), and I’m often among the youngest in church. I confided in a friend recently that it feels like palliative care – looking after the remaining faithful as best we can until they die. RIP.
This is exactly the attitude which evangelicals are pushing in which Save the Parish has been set up to fight with every fibre of its being. Effectively a contempt for rural ministry and obsession with ‘numbers’ based on a few evangelical city and town churches in areas with vast populations. Completely ignoring too the large attendances rural churches get for carol services, weddings, funerals etc often in the hundreds for well known people from the area.
Defeatist rubbish from D Chamberlain
Be of course very opposed, at most they might travel between them, they certainly aren’t going to move to another village every Sunday when they have a perfectly good village church of their own. Of course rural C of E ministry is arguably even more important than city and town C of E ministry. For in cities and suburbs and big towns there are normally plenty of churches of all denominations to choose from, Roman Catholic, Methodist, often Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox and independent in the largest urban areas as well.
In villages or hamlets however the Church of England church is often the only church of any denomination there, hence in our rural C of E village churches we get Roman Catholics and evangelicals worshipping in the same buildings
Why wouldn’t people travel between them? prior to cars it was expected that my parishiners would make the 2-3 mile walk to the parish church to worship there weekly. Sometimes twice on a Sunday. That’s 2 hours or so of walking to go to church once. Compared to 10 minutes in a car to go to the next village!
We can’t afford these large medieval buildings on the current subscription model: they only worked when tax funded them. If congregations want to keep worshiping in their village church they will need to become evangelically minded and seek growth, driven by lay people. Then they might demonstrate the sort of viability that would lead to a presbyter being appointed there.
So true. People in rural areas travel for everything, shopping, doctors, post office, sports clubs, recreation…and yet in today’s day and age, they so often won’t travel to worship because it’s not in ‘their’ church. You see it in towns too, churches with multiple sites but people won’t walk or drive for 5/10mins to worship together with others. It’s heartbreakingly sad and frustrating.
Elderly and retired people especially (who with farmers make up a far larger percentage of most rural areas) don’t want to have to travel over to other village churches when they have a perfectly good church in their own village. The C of E perfectly can afford its ancient medieval buildings, they have billions in assets and millions in investments and can start by scrapping church plants, net zero projects, slavery apology projects which have no relevance to C of E Parish ministry.
“Elderly and retired people especially (who with farmers make up a far larger percentage of most rural areas) don’t want to have to travel over to other village churches when they have a perfectly good church in their own village.”
So? They travel for supermarkets, they travel for the theatre, why should church not be something they travel for? And they generally don’t have ‘a perfectly good church’: 20 elderly people shivering in a broken down building isn’t a sustainable church by any measure.
And no, I don’t think we should spend our reserves on this model: they won’t last long if we do. If we took the entire assets of the central church (less liabilities) and spread it evenly across the c of e we would have roughly £756,213 per church. That sounds like a lot but it would only pay for 10 years of stipend per church, less if there are any major building works required (which almost all churches need). One of mine is about to put toilets in at £400000 at least – so now our 10 years of funded ministry looks more like 5.
In any case, after those 10 years only the churches which have spent wisely and invested in numerical growth of disciples would remain financially viable.
The rest would literally fall down.
In other words, the church of england would dissappear even more rapidly!
So the only realistic choice is to invest in churches which are seeking growth. It might actually make a difference.
They don’t, not if they have a village shop or they order in via Occado etc and they certainly don’t go to the theatre every week either if ever.
A village church is also a place for weddings, funerals and baptisms and carol services for villagers not just church every Sunday.
Yes of course C of E funds should be spent on Parish ministry, it has hundreds of millions in rentals income and share dividends and interest for starters without even touching its reserves and while still retaining all its assets. That is more than enough to ensure its Parishes have priests, regardless of toilets situation, especially if church planting and spending on woke schemes is stopped too.
The C of E has £8 billion in assets and more in investments, it does not need constantly growing congregations to sustain itself like independent, Pentecostal or Baptist churches which do not have those assets or investments. So no, if your main focus is putting funds in town or city evangelical churches with large congregations you should not be in the Church of England or if you are should focus on your own church and leave the central church commissioners to fund Parish ministry across the nation, especially in rural areas
‘when they have a perfectly good village church of their own’
But they don’t. They have a building. That is not a ‘church’ in the Anglican understanding of the word.
They do, that is a church in the Anglican sense of the word, not your desire to turn the C of E into a Baptist church in all but name
Simon you claim that ‘ They do, that is a church in the Anglican sense of the word, ’ which again demonstrates that whilst you’ve at least now heard of the articles of religion, after much patience by comments here, you’ve failed to understand or probably read them.
“ The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. “
Where does this Anglican definition of a church mention buildings?
You clearly have not bothered to read Articles XXXVI and XXXVII of the Church of England which make it clear that it is a Church with Bishops and headed by the King and who only authorises its ordained ministers to preach and minister the Sacraments under Article XXIII.
“ You clearly have not bothered to read Articles XXXVI and XXXVII of the Church of England which make it clear that it is a Church with Bishops and headed by the King and who only authorises its ordained ministers to preach and minister the Sacraments under Article XXIII.”
Eh? What’s that got to do with the price of fish?
Of course it’s sustainable. Just don’t preach a false gospel (as in: authorise one centrally), and parishes will copy the trajectory of those parishes that never were preaching a false gospel.
Oh, and you are right that it cannot continue. But for ’30 years’ I would write ’10’ or perhaps even ‘5’.
(Why are these questions not being proactively addressed at diocesan level…?)
The C of E has £8 billion in assets and investments (and of course lots of paying tourists not just worshippers in its cathedrals) with that in can continue forever
I think you’ve just described a museum, Simon, not an expression of the body of Christ.
Nothing wrong with museums
No, Simon, nothing wrong with museums.
But they are not the church. And they are not the Church of England either, according to the Articles.
They are very much the Parish based Church of England with Bishops and headed by the King as it as the heart of the Articles as set out at Articles XXXVI and XXXVII and only with services led by ordained ministers as clear in the Articles eg XXIII ‘It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.
And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.’
I will repost this here Simon because I’m afraid your base assumptions are quite wrong:
If we took the entire assets of the central church (less liabilities) and spread it evenly across the c of e we would have roughly £756,213 per church. That sounds like a lot but it would only pay for 10 years of stipend per church, less if there are any major building works required (which almost all churches need). One of mine is about to put toilets in at £400000 at least – so now our 10 years of funded ministry looks more like 5.
In any case, after those 10 years only the churches which have spent wisely and invested in numerical growth of disciples would remain financially viable.
The rest would literally fall down.
In other words, the church of england would dissappear even more rapidly!
So the only realistic choice is to invest in churches which are seeking growth. It might actually make a difference.
Wrong, the Church of England has an annual income of £910 million, more than enough to fund ministry in each Parish, especially if savings are made from the over £200 million spent on diocesan administration
https://www.savetheparish.com/church-of-england-finances/#:~:text=At%20the%20top%20of%20the,from%20capital%20growth%20in%202023.
“Wrong, the Church of England has an annual income of £910 million, more than enough to fund ministry in each Parish, especially if savings are made from the over £200 million spent on diocesan administration”
Some administration is clearly needed so there will always be some cost, but ok, there are some savings there. But you can’t just quote £910 million without subtracting reasonable liabilities – pensions, for example at £222, cathedrals and bishops at £61, Church commissioners costs at £107 (presumably there is a cost to generating the income) and let’s assume £100 millon of reasonable diocese head office costs if slashed to the bone. Taking this into account, you end up with 510 million, or about £41,752 per parish, per year. You could get a half time priest but your church falls down.
What’s not on this breakdown is any acknoweldgement that the buildings need to be maintained by local congregations, which are falling.
Save the Parish is a pipe dream.
Thanks Thomas. As they say, ‘Do the math’!
What this does illustrate, as ever, is that the financial challenge we face is really one of discipleship and spiritual life.
Ministry can only be sustained where people are coming to faith, growing as disciples, and giving.
That is how other churches work!
Part time priests are fine for most rural areas, some don’t even get that
Save the Parish had an excellent motion passed at Synod that when spending funds the Commissioners’ should do so “with particular regard” for the purposes that it was left for: the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required. That reflects that above all the Church of England is a Parish based church and the established church, the role of the central church should be putting the millions it earns from its billions of assets in rent and investments into Parish ministry and ensuring every town, village and city in England has at least one stipendiary Parish C of E priest and more the bigger the population of the area.
As Stuart Browning says the Church of England has vast sums of inherited assets to do that evangelical independent or Pentecostal or Baptist churches don’t. So while they need to grow or at least maintain their congregations to fund themselves the C of E doesn’t. Hence church planting should not be a significant goal for the C of E, beyond a few funded by wealthy evangelical churches like HTB themselves.
Instead the role of the C of E should be to provide Parish based ministry available to all, whether they want to go every Sunday, every month or only for weddings, funerals, baptisms and Christmas and Remembrance Sunday
“Instead the role of the C of E should be to provide Parish based ministry available to all, whether they want to go every Sunday, every month or only for weddings, funerals, baptisms and Christmas and Remembrance Sunday”
And yet this approach is one of the primary reasons why the CofE is in a parlous state. Focusing on ‘presence’ with no proclamation, no disciple-making, nothing asked of people. So that when society and Christian belief part ways, as they have done decisively, no-one is interested in the church, even if it is ‘present.’ The Parish system as we have it is utterly obsolete and a quaint anachronism in today’s society.
And as Will Foulger points out, if people do not engage, this is not ‘presence’ in any meaningful sense of the word. It is a fantasy.
The parish system is the main reason why the Church of England was so bitterly opposed to John Wesley’s ministry, even though he never encouraged anybody to leave their local congregation for another. He preached in the fields without invitation from the local vicar or bishop. It is not possible to cage the lion of Judah or the wind of his Holy Spirit.
Absolutely not, it is attitudes like yours why Save the Parish was set up precisely to combat evangelicals like you trying to scrap the Parish system and replace it with effectively a Baptist and Penetecostal church in all but name
I make clear in the article I have no interest in ‘scrapping the parish system’.
But where you are happy for the C of E to fossilise as a series of museums, I am not.
Where did I say that I wished to scrap the parish system? I wrote below that “although I am a nonconformist at heart I feel no triumphalism at [the CoE’s] decline. But… the church of Jesus Christ in England will go on.” Do tell me how you infer from that statement that I wish to scrap the parish system. If you are going to put words in my mouth and then attack them, I am as much a spectator to the process as anybody else.
So Simon you think that having a vicar in an empty building with no congregation still fulfils what the C of E is about?
Have you read the Articles?
In terms of ensuring the established church is represented in every part of England, of course
Bu, as the Articles (and every other thing ever written about the C of E) makes clear—as well as common sense—having an empty building with a vicar and no congregation does not do that.
I really struggle to understand where your theology comes from. Or is this a parody email account?
From the Catholic tradition of the C of E which respects its Parish traditions headed by the King
The Catholic tradition is about empty churches…?? Go and visit your nearest RC, and you will find a rather different story.
There aren’t any Roman Catholic churches in our villages, in fact the Roman Catholics who live here often tend to attend our C of E churches
Perhaps a plaque then, with the telephone number of the Archbishop of Canterbury for contact.
I don’t get the antithesis between parish ministry and church planting. We redraw electoral boundaries when populations change. Likewise as new estates grow and population densities change there’s a need for new parishes, i.e. church plants.
Electoral boundaries may be redrawn but every village will still have a unitary or district and county and parish councillor and MP as it should also still have a church. Church plants are for independent evangelical and Pentecostal churches primarily as they don’t have historic churches to maintain like the C of E but do go where the growth is
Even though this essay and position is commendably far-sighted, the default assumption of the Church of England and of its predecessor, the Roman Catholic church, is not being questioned in the light of scripture – and that is where the real problem lies. The assumption is that this is a ‘Christian country’, meaning in practice that everybody is a Christian whether they can be bothered to go to church or not. But the New Testament is clear that genuine Christianity, involving letting yourself be changed for the better by Jesus Christ in a way you cannot do for yourself, will always be counter-cultural. This is a personal process and it cannot be induced by law or social pressure. And this is the deepest reason why small bands of believers have been persecuted by the Catholic or institutionally protestant religious authorities and slandered as heretics, just as their Lord and Master was. The Anabaptists were an obvious example, and most people here will have heard of the Lollards in England and the Waldenses around the Alps – but there were plenty more groups, as Leonard Verduin’s book “The Reformers and their Stepchildren” makes clear.
When a large proportion of the population attended the CoE, it was possible to get away without questioning this assumption. It is no longer possible today. Many believers prefer the free churches, and most of the population is explicitly nonbelieving whether atheist, pagan or Muslim. So I agree that the Church of England is doomed. Like many insitutions in decline, it will continue to change slowly, but then rapidly.
I gladly accept that the Church of England includes, among the nominal Christians in its congregations and the hypocrites and heretics in its upper hierarchy, many genuine believers in Jesus Christ; and although I am a nonconformist at heart I feel no triumphalism at its decline. But let there be no doubt: the church of Jesus Christ in England will go on.
And in the Church of England which remains still comfortably the largest Protestant denomination in England by attendance and assets
“Silver and gold have I plenty…”
@T1 – In reply to your rather rude comment on my ‘defeatist rubbish’ post, I would say I’m being realistic rather than defeatist. This is my lived experience. I love rural ministry, and I love rural people. I love the rural church, which is what makes me so sad. If you want to talk numbers, then we have about 1.5% of the population of 2000 in church on an average Sunday. In my previous post in a suburban parish of 5000, we had 2%, and we were viewed as ‘successful’ and ‘large’.
I am not obsessed with numbers, simply how best to serve a small and scattered rural community, with limited resources, both human and financial. I retain hope for the future of the Church of Jesus Christ, I just do not see how the current pattern of ministry in the CofE can be sustained.
No you are being defeatist. There is plenty of place for rural ministry, not just in services each Sunday but funerals (we often get hundreds in our rural churches for funerals of well known locals and similar for marriages), baptisms, well attended carol services and concerts etc.
Rural churches do far more than just services on a Sunday
You certainly don’t serve rural communities by shutting the very churches, likely the only churches of any denomination, in their area
Look at the weddings, funerals and concerts and carol services in rural churches, often attended by hundreds, not just the Sunday services
Weddings, funerals, concerts and carol services on their own do not a church make. They certianly don’t fund one. They’re important but only if leveraged to evangelise and grow the church. They’re not signs of a healthy church, unless you’re prepared to call a secular town hall a healthy church.
They very much are part of church life actually, especially in rural areas like mine where the church building is part of the community. The C of E is not a Baptist or Pentecostal purely evangelical church and never has been
Clearly it makes no sense having 8 buildings for 30 people. 6 or 7 need to be closed and maybe a minibus bought for those who can’t travel to the church.
Further, youtube makes it very easy to broadcast a service for those who can’t attend. People learned the necessary skills quickly during covid.
You wouldn’t run a school or other service on this crazy rotating basis and it was never intended to run churches this way.
Time to bite the bullet.
I mostly agree, except about online church. It’s not a gathering, it’s not church. It might even be competing with “in person” church. I refuse to host them.
Absolutely not, at most you could alternate services between them each Sunday as we do. People also want a service they can attend locally not just one watched far away on Youtube. You are exactly the type of patronising city or townie evangelical we have had enough of in the C of E who doesn’t have a clue about rural areas and their churches
Just as well St Paul didn’t have access to a minibus!
St Paul concentrated on founding congregations in urban centres. People could walk to the house where they gathered.
Indeed. In tiny numbers:-)
…and yet it changed the world.
He wrote his letter to the Roamin’.
What do you do with the six or seven churches that are closed?
Thanks for all the interesting and thought provoking debate here (and the rest).
I’m left wondering where this sits with the debate about clergy pensions.
I don’t know if there is enough ‘spare cash’ lying around to both re-subsidise parish ministry
in the way STP seems to desire AND raise/restore clergy pensions to something like the pre-1997 settlement. But I doubt it.
And I doubt that there are enough clergy out there to staff a STP vision of the future anyway. Partly because the remuneration including pensions has diminished, plus other reasons.
If there is a choice I would rather see ‘spare cash’ boosting remuneration for a smaller number of full time congregation building, mission committed clergy, to sustain that vital ministry into the future. Paying for fishers of men, not attendants of empty aquaria.
Full disclosure, I’m a Vicar in a parish of USA 100 adults, over £100K Parish Share paid consistently in full by monthly DD. I don’t think my parish would receive benefit from finiancial redistribution under the STP vision, but I could be wrong. Happy to be enlightened.
I think you are right.
The STP plan fails even on its own terms, from both a financial and a personnel point of view.
Of course it doesn’t, the C of E has £900 million in annual income, it only fails from the perspective of evangelicals who have no interest in Parish ministry and little interest in rural churches and just want funds for trendy evangelical churches in urban areas
T1/Simon
That would be as opposed to ‘liberals’ who have no interest in the Bible and therefore are not really doing Christianity at all, and ‘catholics’ with concerns with abstract ideas like ‘apostolic succession’ which are clearly meaningless since that succession does not protect against unbiblical and therefore un-apostolic teaching…..
And the big problem is still the ‘establishment’ which creates an unbiblical (and I remind you therefore unapostolic) link between Church and world which has the CofE trying to ‘serve two masters’, which Jesus himself pointed out doesn’t and can’t ultimately work…..
And your portrayal of evangelicals is caricature anyway ….
Not really, if anything rural Anglicans tend to be more conservative than urban liberal Anglicans even if not as hardline as some conservative evangelical churches.
You oppose having an established church so correctly are a Baptist not an Anglican but those who are in the established church should believe in its Parish ministry in all parts of England
T1/Simon
“…. those who are in the established church should believe in its Parish ministry in all parts of England.”
Yebbut … what doctrine are they to minister? Answer, the teachings of Jesus and the Aposrles, ie the teachings of the New Testament; and therefore NOT the teachings of ‘liberals’ or of ‘catholics’ which contradict the NT.
And yebbut also – it is understandable that back in the day the CofE was set up to be “established”; but given that the CofE’s standards give the Bible supreme authority in doctrine, they really should by now have worked out that establishment is unbiblical and that consistency requires it to be abandoned in order to follow Apostolic doctrine better….
Simon, the C of E is failure to see people come to a living faith in Jesus, which is what the Prayer Book says is the point of it all.
Question begging.
What is church, ‘a’ church?
Geoff – What is “church” ? My answer – (there are many others), would focus on etymology. The NT derives the term “ekklesia” primarily from the Septuagint, which in turn presumably derives it from common usage in the Graeco-Roman culture. In the Septuagint “ekklesia” refers to the “Qahal” of Israel, meaning Israel in theocratic assembly; Israel as a holy, spiritual entity before God, as distinct from Israel as a political or geographical state. In common usage “ekklesia” was one of numerous terms which could describe a local assembly. Roman culture was rich with local social societies of various kinds, but of all the many words which were available to describe these local assemblies, “ekklesia” was the only one which carried the connotation of exercising authority. An “ekklesia” was “called out” to exercise authority in some form or other. Putting these two ideas together, the “ekklesia” (local or global) denotes the company of believers called together to come under God’s authority so that his devolved authority might be exercised through them. It is the primary (though not necessarily sole?) channel of Grace through which God’s (salvation) purposes (thy kingdom come, thy will be done) are to be carried out and implemented. Seen through this lens it has nothing to do with church buildings, episcopal oversight, or CofE or RC history (though these may be useful in context), and everything to do with coming under the loving authority of Father God and allowing his Spirit to work in us and through us. That is my take, as I said, there are many other views, all with valid insights, no doubt.
It’s truly heart-breaking reading the experiences of men like David Chamberlin who have dedicated their lives to Christ and serving others and are now witnessing the slow death of Christianity.
I am old enough to still remember a time when this decline of the faith in the West was anticipated, indeed expected. We were also made aware of the main line of attacks on the Church.
As a child n the 1960s, we were conscious of a malign spiritual powers in our world as well as our own weakness and predisposition to succumb to them – of how to resist and the need for “spiritual warfare.”
In September, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII collapsed. After regaining consciousness, he described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near the tabernacle. He heard two voices – the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan. The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will give themselves to my service.” Our Lord reportedly replied: “You will be given the time and the power.” Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following “Prayer to St. Michael” (which also contains a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Masses as a protection for the Church against the attacks from Hell:
This was abbreviated in the 1930s, removing the prophecy:
It was discontinued after the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.
The Catholic school I attended regularly recited and discussed both versions. We were left in no doubt about the strength and malignity of Satan, as well as our own inclinations to sin given our weakened natures. It wasn’t a “hell fire and brimstone” message; it was one of hope and victory, of loyalty and honour, of staying the course and using the great spiritual weapons at our disposal.
This was the backdrop to learning about the beauty of the Gospel and Christ; His love and sacrifice for us in defeating Satan’s power and in sending the Holy Spirit – God’s Love – for us to receive and share with one another. Church attendance, Mass and reception of the sacraments, naturally followed, and we felt a sense of community with one another.
We were also told of the apparitions at Fatima and Our Lady’s message for the world: that the “final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and family;” that the sanctity and strength of the family are under attack and this battle will be crucial for the spiritual well-being of the world.
Now an old man, it seems to me, all the Christian churches need to reflect on Pope Leo’s vision and on the message from Blessed Mary at Fatima. Without greater awareness of the nature of the spiritual backdrop to the decline of faith and worship, no amount of restructuring stands any hope of success.
The “battleground” is actually the sanctity of marriage and the spiritual formation of children – not preserving ancient church buildings, bureaucracies, and grand manage plans for growth.
Preservation of ancient buildings and Parish ministry goes hand in hand with the sanctity of marriage and formation of children given the number of marriages and baptisms they do
T1 – I don’t disagree but are the married formed beforehand in the sanctity of marriage and its Christian meaning? Are the parents and Godparent of children who are to be baptised advised on the sacred oaths they give in the name of the children and their responsibilities? Or are once these sacred ceremonies now mere rituals; shells hollowed out of meaning?
Yes vicars still have several meetings with those to be married to ensure they are prepared and understand its meaning and also with godparents and parents usually at least one meeting of prep beforehand too
Thank you for this article, which has much to ponder. I could write a very long response to it, but for the moment I’ll limit myself to one observation.
You suggest that there is a contradiction between the Bishop of Rochester complaining of “the sense of control by the centre” whilst also welcoming a substantial grant from national sources. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction here: it is possible that the Bishop genuinely welcomes the grant whilst being frustrated at the process needed to obtain it. As with all national grants, there will have been a lengthy and complex process to go through – indeed, we are told that it required “Claire Boxall, …, Vanessa Curtis, the Called to Grow Project Manager, Allie Kerr and of course Matthew himself…” to put such an application together. How many personnel hours were absorbed in such a process, and at what cost? And was the diocese really free to set its own goals in making such a bid, or did it have to tick all the right boxes, use all the right buzzwords and conform to national assumptions about what is expected?
The whole business of distributing funds through grants allocated on this sort of basis ensures very tight control of funds, and alienates those who lack the resources to submit such costly bids. There must be a better way of distributing central resources.
There is an elephant in the room, not just part of one!