Last weekend, in an online conversation, someone highlighted to me the most recent ministry statistics, which were released in June, but seem to have gone under the radar. I certainly did not spot them, and I don’t recall anyone commenting on them. They show that 47.5% of current C of E stipendiary clergy are aged 55 or over, which of course means that they will all have retired in 12 years’ time.
12 years might sound like quite a long planning horizon—but at the sessions of General Synod this year, we have been projecting over the next three rounds of the triennium planning cycle, which is therefore a nine-year horizon. And anything connected with demographics is long term, or at least generational; those who are due to retire in the next decade will mostly have entered training between 20 and 30 years ago, or more. This is a reminder that decisions we make now about training, ordination, and appointments will leave a very long, generational, legacy.
I casually posted about this on Facebook on Sunday night, and there followed a very long and active thread about it which lasted for the next couple of days.
Coincidentally, at yesterday’s meeting of the Archbishops’ Council, these figures were revisited under the item on training for ministry. To maintain our current numbers, we would need to be training and ordaining 400 clergy for stipendiary ministry each year, together with around 200 for non-stipendiary ministry, an annual total of 600. Currently, although the total numbers have slightly increased this year to 417 (from an average of 358 over the last three years), this is still a long way short. Unless there is a significant and sustained increase in vocations to ordained ministry, if you do the sums, then it looks as though we be reduced to around 5,000 to 5,500 clergy by 2035.
(Curiously, as far back as 2012, David Keen was challenging us on his blog: how do we reimagine a church with only 5,000 parochial clergy, so this question has been around for quite some time.)
This is sobering at so many levels. I was taken aback to discover that I had done an analysis of such projections in 2016, when the statistics department produced a detailed model of the age profile of clergy. There were dire warnings about the consequences of the expected drop in stipendiary numbers, which were expected to fall from the then 8,098 to the shocking figure of 7,179 by 2035 if nothing was done! Here we are, half way through that 20-year projection, and have already fallen well below that, and are now expecting to have 23% fewer clergy by 2035.
I also noted then that age profile varied enormously from one diocese to another, and that must still be the case. So the continued reduction will have a differential impact in different areas, and for some dioceses the impact will be worse and sooner than in others.
So this one statistic has far reaching consequences on a whole range of issues right across the Church, and I am not clear that anyone is really taking this on board. Here are the implications I can think of; do add your own observations in the comments.
1. Episcopal Leadership
We keep being told that, though we might be synodically governed (or administered), we are episcopally led. So how much time have the House of Bishops spent on thinking about this and considering the challenge and the implications that it presents? And have bishops looked at the age profile of their clergy in their dioceses to do proper planning?
One major factor in the lower number of vocations to ordained ministry is current clergy wellbeing. There are two dimensions to this: first, flourishing clergy are enthusiastic about ministry, and encourage others to think about it; and, secondly, flourishing clergy make God’s call to ministry look attractive and possible.
So how much time has the House given to this question? This is an open question, as I have not gone back over HoB minutes to check. But one thing I do know: not a single bishop spoke to me about the importance of the reform of pension and stipend voted for in my private members’ motion in Synod in February 2024 and confirmed in July this year (2025). And one senior bishop said to me ‘I know I have done nothing about this’. What could be more important for the shepherds of the shepherds to be considering?
I am not raising this simply for the sake of ‘bashing the bishops’. But it raises once again the basic questions of transparency, accountability, and trust. If bishops want to tell us that the Church is ‘episcopally led’, then I think we need to see some leadership.
2. Living in Love and Faith
There have been some hints—even definite statements—that Synod next February will see the final proposals in the LLF process, and bring that long, protracted, and painfully divisive process to an end.
Yet other voices seem to want to qualify this, and are talking about moving to another phase of conversation. There is no doubt that the LLF process has been divisive and demoralising at every level of the Church—though it is also surprising how many congregations have managed to avoid engaging with it.
The issue of LLF always comes up in research about what is suppressing vocations to ordained ministry; both ‘sides’ in the debate feel as though the Church is in limbo and undecided, and they don’t want to be tied in ministry to a Church which seems as though it is about to lurch in the opposite direction to their own view.
So will the House of Bishops ensure this is the case? Will they propose a clear drawing of a line, even a moratorium on discussion for the future, so that we can focus on more important things, including seeing a renewal of the ordained ministry of the Church?
3. The impact on diocesan funding
Clergy stipends are one of the major costs for any dioceses, and whilst there is clear evidence that stipendiary ministry that is intentionally missional is the one key predictive factor in seeing congregations grow, nevertheless many dioceses have been cutting clergy posts due to financial pressures.
The new triennium of funding will see an additional £48m passed over to dioceses, relieving pressure from the ‘supply’ side—but at the same time, if clergy numbers decline, then then that will relieve pressure from the ‘demand’ side of diocesan balance sheets.
So the question is: has this decline and the consequent relief of financial pressure been factored into Triennium funding? I just don’t know the answer to that—but I am guessing that it could be tracked down.
This has an interesting impact on the funding questions raised by Save the Parish. I commented on Facebook that finance seemed to be StP’s primary concern, and was roundly rebuked by StP members. Yet on their homepage, we find the main exposition of their method thus:
By returning the billions of Church Commissioners’ assets to the funding of ordinary parish ministry, and streamlining the bloated costs and duplicated activities of dioceses, the Church could reignite a passion for Christ across the nation, bubbling up from the thousands of communities to which she ministers.
And the 2021 Manifesto runs to 651 words, of which 512 (79%) are about finance. Of course, word count is not an absolute indicator of importance; as one wag commented, if that were so, then dealing with mildew might seem more important than loving your neighbour in the Old Testament. Yet this is not the Old Testament; it is a manifesto specifically written to outline priorities.
With the decline in the number of stipendiary clergy, it will quickly not be finance which is limiting parish ministry, but the sheer availability of clergy themselves—if, indeed, that is not already the case in many parts of the country.
4. The shape of diocesan staffing
Bristol Diocese has just published its statement of needs for the next diocesan bishop. Marcus Walker has offered a trenchant critique of it (in headlines terms) here on Twitter. He was alerted to it by Mads Davies of the Church Times:
I’m looking at a diocesan statement of needs where there are 90 stipendiary clergy and 80 members of diocesan staff (30 funded by the National Church). This sort of ratio is also a significant trend in terms of development of the Church in recent years.
It is not clear who the 30 national-funded people are, or what they do. They might be actually located in parishes for much of the time, though the document says they work out of the diocesan office. But even a ratio of 90 clergy in parishes to 50 central staff looks poor—and it seems far from untypical across dioceses.
There are legal things that need doing, particularly in relation to schools and safeguarding, as well as DAC. And some of these roles will be providing other kinds of support to clergy in parishes. But there was a day when many of these roles were done by parochial clergy. In the light of this collapse in clergy numbers overall, should we have any clergy posts in the diocesan office at all? On this question, I expect I am entirely agreeing with Save the Parish.
And should we expect, as other provinces do, bishops also to be based in parishes?
5. The number of dioceses—and bishops
In 1990, more than a million people attended Church of England churches, there were 11,072 stipendiary clergy, and we had 115 bishops. Today, attendance is half that; we are very soon to have half the number of clergy; yet the number of bishops is almost the same at 104. Why?
And at what point of decline do we face up to the duplication and complexity of having 42 dioceses? The ‘Leeds’ experiment, merging the dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds, and Wakefield into one, has shown that there are initially few gains and a lot of work in doing this kind of ‘top-down’ merger. So why not go ‘bottom up’, by looking at merging central services in neighbouring dioceses, and taking it from there?
(Additional note: I see that the Roman Catholic Church has 22 dioceses covering England and Wales. I wonder whether their pattern would be a good one to compare with a possible merger of Church of England dioceses?)
6. Rural ministry
A repeated cry from the rural parts of the Church is that clergy are just being spread too thin, as benefices have been merged into groups, and clergy have had to cover wider and wider geographical areas.
And yet it remains the case that we have twice as many clergy per capita of population in the rural areas as we have in the urban. What is the justification for that? Are urban people less important in terms of their pastoral care and need to hear the gospel?
But it is clear that groups containing eight, 10, or 16 benefices are simply unmanageable, and as a result rural ministry becomes less and less feasible and so less attractive. What will happen when clergy numbers fall as predicted? Vast swathes of rural England will likely be left without any stipendiary clergy presence if we retain the current model. And that matters if, as the research suggests, stipendiary ministry is a vital part of Christian mission.
So what are the alternative possibilities for rural ministry? What other denominations have discovered better ways of addressing this? Are we thinking about this?
7. Mission strategy
As I mentioned earlier, there is clear evidence that stipendiary ministry that is intentionally missional is the one key predictive factor in seeing congregations grow. And this has been the cornerstone of a whole range of mission initiatives, including those supported by funding from the centre through the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB).
With this projected drop in clergy, we will have to think again. Many people reacted with horror at the idea, promoted by John McGinley, of church planting led by lay people. But it looks like these are the only people available to do it!
Additional note: a comment by a friend on social media reminded me of another important issue we should consider: why must clergy retire at 70? In fact, why must they retire at all, when for some years there has been no mandatory age of retirement in employment? (The paradox here is that clergy in parishes must retire at 70, whereas clergy employed by the diocese can continue to work!)
I previously put the figure at 67, mistakenly because the pension becomes available at 68, and few clergy choose to work beyond the time that they can afford to retire.
It seems fitting that I am posting this on one of the twelve Ember Days in the Church of England. These occur in groups of three at the four turning points of the season, after the first Sunday in Lent, after Pentecost, after Holy Cross Day (14th September), and after St Lucy’s Day (13th December). Traditionally, Ember Days are times of fasting, prayer, and especially intercession for those being ordained. In the Church of England’s Common Worship, they are still listed in the calendar with the note:
Ember Days may be observed as days of prayer for those called to ministry, for the choice of new ministers, and for all Christians in their vocation.
These projections certainly seem like a turning point for the Church of England, leading us into a new and challenging season, and fasting and praying are surely the most appropriate response to them—alongside responding to the whole range of challenges that they present to us.
Buy me a Coffee
I have no intention of retiring until I am seventy, the Lord permitting, and I thought we got our pension at 68 not 67. To balance that, some retire early, especially if they already have a workplace pension they built up prior to ordination, and we lose some through ill health or who drop out because stress-related illness. Major re-organisation and some very tough decisions need to be made, in addition to an all-out focus on mission and discipleship. I am not sure that the Church of England is ready for either, but I hope I am mistaken.
Given that, as far as I can see, very few are facing up to this reality, I am unsure the C of E is able to respond…
Annie Varley
As a mere parishioner as far as I can see the Church of England is determined to shoot itself in the foot. We are two small parishes each with a church both of which are closed. We are 2 of 13 Parishes. We had an amazing Lay Reader and Church Warden both in their 80’s who kept the church active, until they decided they had to be given clearance to deal with younger people……there weren’t any! They demanded 2 hour zoom meetings and follow up meetings of an hour. Our Lay Reader was dealing with a wife with dementia and our church warden had an accident which left him with a slight walking problem. They both resigned, as I pointed out at the final service neither of them could run fast enough to do any damage to anyone. We were also sent a female Rector who was really quite useless all she seemed to say was how spiritual she was which didn’t help people who were bereaved. Don’t think she understood pastoral care. We then had a male Rector who upset everyone and managed to reduce a congregation of 24 to a mere 6. Very sad
That does sound like a disaster. Bureaucracy is damaging.
But can I also note that with the two people keeping the congregation running both being in their 80s, it didn’t look like it had a long future?
I think the biggest challenge for the rural church is demographics of the congregation…
I’d say the biggest challenge for the rural church is our acquiescence in the secularisation of church schools.
I am sure you are right…
Retirement age now 67?
No, sorry: mandatory retirement at 70; but pension at 68 which is when most people retire.
How many men are joining the clergy after theology degree? How many women? . So, question I ask in 20 or 30 years time will the C of E have a majority of women clergy and will that have an adverse effect on men attending services.. at 87 this will not affect me however I do wonder how it will affect the mainstream Church but maybe not the more evangelical Church attendance.
We know the split between men and women training and being ordained, since it is included in the ministry statistics analysis from Ministry Council.
I suspect we need much more support for young adults to explore Church ministry in a *paid* capacity before considering ordination. Many churches do not give sufficient opportunities to young adults to experience all the sorts of ministry they would be signing up for if they got ordained and so ordination (even with placements alongside the path of discernment) is a bit of a shot in the dark without being able to try it properly first. How much harder to risk such a shot if you’re actually not so young, have children and an expensive mortgage, and would be uprooting everything if you got ordained. So we need to support young adults early before establishing family and career to experience full time ministry so that they can factor it into their decision making. The financial landscape has changed so much.
Yes it has. But there are many ministry experience schemes now…?
The discernment and selection process is based on the assumption that you have enough money and financial security to live in your own home/housing with a regular income that is enough to comfortably cover living costs AND support the substantial voluntary work required to get through selection and into training.
This is exacerbated when it’s decided that the norm is now non-residential training, which effectively (apart from fees) is then self-supported by the ordinand. Young people are facing enough challenges and struggles in the face of the housing and cost-of-living crisis, workplaces and cultures that demand a lot – often with precariousness that makes it hard to plan ahead or engage in a process that proceeds very slowly with a lot of risk.
If you can’t see the risks, speak to any ‘young vocation’ who has engaged faithfully and then had a ‘no’ or found themselves routed into long-term unpaid ministry. This type of outcome can have negative impacts on a person’s life trajectory – health, financial well-being, family and personal life. Especially when this sort of risk is increasingly visible due to more open sharing of stories on social media, it’s no wonder that people think carefully before they proceed. This is not like most jobs/roles, where you can simply move on. You are required to give high-investment over years – with limited security and risk of nothing at the end.
Back in 2018 I undertook a modest research project under the title of Nurturing the Vocation of Retired Clergy precisely because of the impending demographic cliff edge in relation to full time stipendiary clergy you mention. Looking back at my introduction, it seems from this article that the situation has got even more acute since then. Of course the main issues are much wider than this as laid out so clearly in the article. However the topic of the congoing ministry of the (mainly younger) retired is still relevant. My research began to gain some traction in 2018/19 but the advent of Covid put paid to further progress as the C of E had rather more urgent things to worry about. My report is on still on the Retired Clergy Association web site if anyone is really interested.
Thanks
In response to sections 4 & 5 Hereford Diocese, where I am based, is fairly lean and has a small staff and we are working with Worcester on education and with Worcester and Gloucester in terms of trying to develop clergy training and helping lay people look after building. These are small steps but important ones.
As a rural vicar, I would rather be here than anywhere else! But there are strains and we need to look at admin support for rural clergy, such as being used in our neighbouring deanery of Abbeydore, as a way of easing things.
That sounds encouraging…
Oh, well done! Finally someone mentions lay people – the tirelessly faithful, unpaid workers keeping vacant parishes and churches afloat, keeping those churches open to all comers by giving if themselves until they are worn out.
In the diocese I’m in, everyone was invited to attend a special tea party (over several events) with the Bishop – churchwardens, deanery synod members, ALMs…not one Reader (Licensed Lay Minister in enlightened areas) was invited unless they fell into another category.
When the church wakes up to the amount of work done by the UNordained, maybe they’ll start to see where the solutions lie. Without the laity, the CofE would already be extinct.
I agree that we need to mention laity more. But I would rather talk about the priesthood of the whole people of God, rather than focus on another tier of hierarchy.
I do agree with a lot of what you have said but would also like to add the role of non-stipendary clergy who also contribute significantly to the church, often far above their agreed working agreements. Many of whom also have been left to manage churches due to the lack of stipendary. They often give sacrificialy of their time, family and finances as do many of our lay members.
Some dioceses would not be able to function properly without their work.
We, each and everyone of us are all part of the body of Christ, unfortunately we often have the expectation others will provide our ‘spiritual’ needs rather than all playing their part in the body.
We have Safeguarding Dashboards heralded – we need Mission Dashboards front and centre !
This all looks sadly familiar: https://davidkeen.blogspot.com/2012/06/leading-of-5000-redesigning-cofe.html
At a ‘preparing for retirement’ seminar run by Ecclesiastical at the end of last year, we were told that the average clergy retirement age is 65 1/2. So if anything the figures are worse than you describe. I’m 56, was ordained at 28, and under the old pension arrangements would have got a full pension at 65. For those of us who’ve been doing this a long enough time, with the restoration of pension provision we thankfully won’t need now to hang on until 70 to mitigate against pensioner poverty.
A figure in the ministry stats struck me: around 300 clergy under 65 resigned during the year. I assume that’s ‘left parochial ministry’ rather than just moved jobs. Despite various bits of work on clergy wellbeing over the years, the CofE has been lamentable at identifying and supporting clergy who are on the edge of giving up, or at following them up afterwards to see if restoration to a ministry role is possible in the future.
Good grief, I just looked at that page (around 300 clergy resigned) and that’s astonishing.
And i think you must be right to presume that it isn’t just those who moved jobs, as there’s over 6000 stipendiary clergy – I can’t see how you’d have a number that low unless the average incumbent stayed in the average post for 20 years, which certainly isn’t my experience.
And I would flag – it’s not just 300 clergy – it’s 300 STIPENDIARY clergy.
One implication of it is that, even ignoring the effects of ageing, the numbers leaving are still even GREATER than the numbers of stipendiaries being ordained.
Good grief, the Church of England is about to lose about 50% of it’s stipendiary clergy!
That’s sobering – 4% (1 in 25) of clergy dropping out in a single year, if I am comprehending?
And that’s on top of the excess of retirements minus ordinations?
On the other hand, is there a number for clergy coming back into parish ministry from sector jobs, which would mitigate the loss of the 300 (some of whom I assume are going into clergy work outside the parochial ministry)?
Please consider and value the contribution made by self supporting and House for Duty priests, especially in the rural areas. I don’t mean ‘ministers in secular employment’ (ie those whose major ministry focus is in their workplace) but those who give a considerable amount of time to ministry. A major burden for many of us is admin and governance, which is not what we were selected or trained for. If dioceses could help with this, there would be more time for clergy to be actively involved in mission and growing the church.
Yes we still need some diocesan officers to deal with the admin and governance
There’s an interesting initiative in Swansea and Brecon Diocese, where they have used a central grant to pay for an administrator for each of their newly formed parish groupings. It sounds a little Acts 6, freeing up the Apostles from the organisational work, and perhaps there may be a few Stephens or Philips among them.
Rural ministry – you ask what other denominations have done. The answer generally is that they have withdrawn to the towns, and if you look at the architecture you can see that former chapels are now pleasant small homes in villages. The parish church is not often so easily adapted! The Church of England presence is often the last remaining community centre in a village, at least that was the case in the Diocese of Hereford where I lived, and I. think the same is true in other parts of the country. Where clergy are not tied to their computers and the demands of the ‘system’ they can be an effective pastoral presence in the community, alleviating isolation of farmers, and the effects of the often hidden poverty in the countryside. Multi parish benefices are manageable where there is enough time for clergy to enable the ministry of all, and to support the church wardens and congregations appropriately. Geography makes travelling harder, although the numbers of parishioners might be few. Actually if one looks at percentage attendance in urban and rural parishes the attendance in adequately supported rural parishes is much higher than in urban parishes in general. SO pleased that you are addressing this subject Ian. It was very much talked about when I was in clergy training some decades ago, but, like many insoluble problems, has fallen out of interest more recently
Couldn’t agree more, Sarah. Villagers are keenly aware of the centrality of their village church and congregation to their flourishing as a rural community and respond readily to initiatives to encourage “every member ministry”.
“The fields are white”…….
Martin Walker
Well said, the rural church is often closer to the heart of the community than the urban church, the focus of local weddings and funerals and with the Vicar being seen at the May Fayre etc and known by the largely farming and retired community. Some villages as you say had chapels, mainly Methodist with a few Baptist which have closed and been converted to homes or nurseries etc leaving the C of E church as the only Christian denomination in the area and it needs to be supporter
Is not what is missing, is believing young family man and wife with children, who can engage with families in the localities. That may be more pertinent in urban areas than rural.
As for age of retirement, is there not scope for faithful mentoring, where the necessary vigor has gone, for full time ministry?
In the last post I gave an example of one such family, who left the CoE and are being supported to church plant.
But there is another example. A female colleague in senior management in the NHS left to go with her husband and young family, as he left teaching to live and work as he trained at Oak Hill. (Early 2000’s). Only last year I heard that the family returned and he ministers in an independent church, alongside a former Oak Hill alumnus.
Please post using your full name. Thanks.
I’ll pass on that thanks. You know my full name from a email I responded to. The people I have mentioned are anonymous and may not remain so if I gave my full name here. Though the substance of may not dovetail exactly with the article for those who seek to remain, it is it revelant to recruitment and retention and their demographics.
Locally (the only thing I can be definitive about!) I am in a Benefice of 6 churches. When I arrived in 2003, there were 2 clergy (it was 2 Benefices until 2023) – now we have 6 clergy. There are 2 stipendary (Rector and Curate), 1 House for Duty, and 3 PTOs. The ages of these 6 clergy are: 50ish, 52, 62, 64, 72, 82. We can preserve, and develop, the variety of worship traditions and continue to grow (consistently about 1% growth each year over 22 years). Worth noting that we also have 9 trained and authorised worship leaders and about the same number of Pastoral Visitors – all lay. The future is likely to be a mix of lay and ordained leadership – a focus on mission and growth will keep the churches growing (and sustainable). Financially, we are ‘cheap’ for the Diocese!
How interesting. I think you are in Winchester Diocese—is rural ministry generally doing well there?
I was interested to see how many of you in the team had previous careers…
Good news/bad news:
Ave Sunday attendance in 2015 was 698,000. In 2024, assuming no change since 2023, it was 498,000. A fall of 28.7%.
Stipendiary clergy in 2015 totalled 7730, in 2024 6695. A fall of 13.4%.
Thus stipendiary clergy numbers have been declining at only half the rate of congregations, and the ratio of clergy to laity has been increasing.
A straight-line projection of the decline in attendance numbers from 2015 to 2019 (it is unlikely the post-covid partial recovery in 2021-23 will reverse the long-term trend) indicates that attendance in 2035 will be around 280,000, less than half what it was in 2019.
That is only true if you consider numbers on Sundays.
But as many have observed, even regular attenders do not come every Sunday, and there are many who attend midweek.
So I think in real terms there is more parity.
“What other denominations have discovered better ways of addressing [rural ministry]?”
Abandon them leaving the CofE as the only Christian witness. We could only half-replicate that, and I’d rather we didn’t.
But I think our rural communities are a difficult question, and I doubt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ is best. But, it isn’t helped by Save the Parish people* who think that the difficulties aren’t a consequence of reality that we’d all like to resolve, but is a deliberate conspiracy by the bishops and charismatics.
* I daresay not all StP people, and I hope that those who accept the reality can correct those that don’t.
StP is right that the C of E central funds have been too spent on woke schemes and admin and trendy church plants with limited results. When what they should be spent on is supporting the existing Parish churches of our established church and their Ministers. Thankfully that is starting to see some results at Synod and Commissioner level and the next Archbishop will hopefully continue that
Please post using your full name. Thanks
There has been some efforts to address this with the 10% rise in clergy stipends proposed for next year and a boost to clergy pensions. As there are now more applicants for jobs than vacancies the prospect of a roughly average salary and a free rent and mortgage free house and reasonable pension may attract Christians with degrees to train as priests who would otherwise have looked for paid employment elsewhere.
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/church-of-england-clergy-heading-for-10-7-per-cent-stipend-rise/
However I also agree with some of the points in the article. We need to reduce Diocesan admin and put the funds back into clergy in the parishes. That includes Self Supporting Ministers being helped as well as stipendiary Vicars. We also have far more Bishops than we now need, the number of Suffrage Bishops for starters could be halved. Church Commissioners should also scrap all new schemes and put their funds almost entirely into Parish Ministry.
In terms of rural ministry of course the issue is most C of E churches were built before the industrial revolution when most of the English population lived in villages, hamlets, small market towns and the countryside. Since the industrial revolution most of the population though has moved to the cities and suburbs or large commuter belt or ng industrial (or now ex industrial in some cases) towns. So therefore a city or town will have a higher level of congregation per C of E church than a village church will have. Hence leading to some merging of Parishes, so a Vicar managing 4 or even 5 or more village Parish churches now is not uncommon.
We must remember though that in most villages and hamlets the Church of England church IS the church. Unlike cities and towns there is no Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal or Independent Free Church providing an alternative. Hence in rural churches like ours we get Roman Catholics as well as Protestant evangelicals all worshipping in the same church in their village. I hope the next Archbishop in particular therefore directs more funds to rural Parishes and to support rural C of E ministry
It won’t be anything like a 10% rise unless you are already on the national minimum stipend. Most will get 5 or 6% imho
Still significant relative to the 4% overall UK average wage rise at present
It is true there are far too many bishops in the Church of England, just as the Royal Navy has too many admirals and not enough ships.
But the distribution is not good, either. There is a report linked in the modestly titled blog ‘Thinking Anglicans’ which states that the evangelical ‘flying bishop’ of Ebbsfleet has 196 parishes in his ‘watch’ with a usual Sunday attendance that amounts to 6% of the Church of England and a ‘patch’ of about 33,000 square miles to cover and he has no assistance in these impossible duties.
Obviously the C of E hierarchy doesn’t want any more conservative evangelicals – but they haven’t died off as they were supposed to. Meanwhile the C of E half the size it was when women were ordained in 1994, so things haven’t quite turned out as we were promised, that a new lease of life was going to enter the C of E.
Indeed. Though the Bishop of Ebbsfleet is rather a special case representing only those C of E Parishes which reject women bishops and priests. I don’t see women priests as a problem in church growth though, the fastest growing churches in the world are Pentecostal and plenty of them have women priests. The minority of bishops and priests involved in recent sex abuse cases have also been almost exclusively male
1 Timothee 3
Qualifications for Vicars
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be a Church of England Vicar desires a noble, if thankless, task. The Vicar is to be middle class, faithful to his chosen Rugby team, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, shops at Sainsbury’s, and able to teach (but not for longer than ten minutes). He must not be given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and just wealthy enough to survive on a single outcome while not wealthy enough to save for retirement or ever be comfortable.
He must manage his own family well but see that his children are enrolled in a school far away from his own parish, and force them to attend a church where they are the only children. Moreover he must accept these things without complaining about it. (If anyone does not know how to force his own family to church, how can he force anyone else’s?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become a suffragan Bishop! He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will have a career to fall back on if he dares to be ineffective at meeting the Diocesan strategic targets.
-The Cynic’s Paraphrase.
Very good..but oh dear!
Most vicars actually send their children to the nearest C of E school, often in the Parish.
Some vicars have lawyers and doctors as spouses so a significant second income or a property they let out, not all rely on their stipend to fund their family. In the 18th and 19th century a C of E vicar or rector or bishop was of course often the 2nd or 3rd son of an aristocratic or landed gentry family, who did not inherit the title and house and estates and did not become an army or naval officer, a lawyer or a banker which were also respectable options for the non first sons of the upper classes. At that time of course the parsonage or vicarage was normally a grand house with 5 or 6 bedrooms and often the second biggest in a village or market town after the manor house, now of course most of them are in private hands sadly and found in Country Life with prices tags of £1 million plus. Vicars houses now more modern and cheaper to run but not as grand
I will keep it short.
Iv retired once. I have gone back to do a 3 year interim parish post in a very challenging area. Im well into 3rd year and iv had 2 conversations with my bishop in that time one for interview. I recently wrote to my archD on my MDR “why has this Diocese chosen to go with contract rather than relational”? They didnt think they had!! It doesn’t matter to me im on my way out but it worries me for the care and value of new clegy.
Well done Steven for raising the elephant in the room.
In 2023, 36 percent of regular attendees at Church of England services were aged 70 or over. Many will die in the next 10 years.
The C of E will need a much smaller number of stipendiary ministers going forward. Ordaining 600 people a year is ludicrous, unless they are almost all non-stipendiary.
The C of E still has 16,000 churches and cathedrals to manage, offering weddings, baptisms and funerals not just weekly Sunday and midweek services. The fewer ordained the more churches there will be for ministers to cover, especially in rural villages and hamlets (given 10,000 C of E churches ie over half are in rural areas) and it is simply not viable for one minister to cover more than say 4 rural churches which is sometimes the case with a few rural Parishes
And it’s that 1/3 of our congregations who generally put most of the money into the pot and sustain the local church.
But in my wide experience of rural ministry who frustrate any change to make worship more relevant and accessible.
Newcomers welcome as long as they accept the traditional worship as it is.
Sadly I hear the motto all too often; “This will see me out” and I weep.
Not true in our rural churches, there are lots of wealthy locals including a Roman Catholic who give large sims to the church. Worshippers here don’t want just happy clappy services all the time, they want proper traditional BCP services as well as family services with choirs not just guitars and worship band. That is where central church funds should be going above all too to support our Parish churches, especially in rural areas
Also! In Birmingham when i was a new parish priest we went through calked to the new kingdom (how to loose 3 clergy per deanery) i suggested clergy free Sunday’s. I was nearly stoned on Erdington high street. Why can’t we be prophetic and reactionary?
I can’t help but wonder….
On an average week I attend the local RC Church, a Charismatic Community Church and our local Cathedral.
Which of these three are full of children, expanding and looking for more space… the last one kind of gives it away.
There is growth in the church but it doesn’t seem to be in the traditions the CoE “hierarchy” seems to like.
So, I wonder how many would-be ordinands from these traditions have been unjustly rejected because the entrenched biases of the church just don’t want them?
If God is doing something and the church doesn’t really want to get onboard, well that’s pretty much the church’s problem. God will plough His resources into other missions.
I am assuming that the answer to your question is ‘the charismatic community church’.
I agree with you about where growth is. I hope you might be reassured that I do make these points in AC. Yesterday, I made the case that the Council for Christian Unity should not be focussed on ‘Full Visible Unity’ with Rome, or the Methodist covenant, but seeking to work with and learn from the new churches.
The Orthodox church is also seeing significant growth in the UK
From a very small base. Not nearly as significant as FIEC or Vineyard.
Neither of which are still anywhere near the top 2 churches by congregation, which remain the Roman Catholic and Church of England churches in England
You are apply the wrong measure. There is no need to divide up along institutional lines only.
The new churches together are much bigger than the C of E.
Really? In 2020 for instance there were 1.2 million Anglicans in the UK, 541,954 Pentecostals, 234,155 in new churches and 108,200 in ‘Fresh Expressions’ so combined still smaller than Anglicans
https://faithsurvey.co.uk/download/csintro2.pdf
Thanks Simon. I am not sure where that table comes from—but it proves my point.
In the table from page 4, you need to add Independent, New churches, Pentecostal and Presbyterian (many of which are growing), Smaller and Fresh X, and you get around 1.7m. In these churches ‘membership’ is usually lower than attendance, since not all attenders sign up.
I don’t know where they get the figure of 1.2m for ‘membership of C of E, but Sunday attendance is currently around 585,000.
That makes these new and pentecostal churches together around 3 times as significance as the C of E.
Since when have Presbyterians been new churches? They date from the 16th century Reformation and John Knox just as the C of E date from the Reformation. Membership includes those who describe themselves as Anglican and members of our established church
The International Presbyterian church is a small denomination which is planting and seems to be growing.
I retired at age 77 after 51 years of ordained ministry. The Episcopal Church requires retirement at 72 but I transferred to an interdenominational church which allowed me to continue indefinitely. However I took my church pensions (CofE and TEC) and social security earlier when I qualified for them as well as continuing to contribute to my personal retirement investment fund. A lot of talent and experience is lost due to premature retirement.
How interesting. yes it is.
Ted, were you at All Souls before going to America? I seem to recall your name from somewhere.
I suppose it depends when you consider ‘premature’.
This is a very thoughtful piece but I am bound to say (without wishing to be pejorative) that as a member of Archbishops’ Council, why don’t you know the answers to some of these questions? A hallmark of my now retired bishop’s ministry in St Albans (Alan Smith) has been to maintain stipendiary clergy numbers (largely). Each diocese needs to grip the issues in its own context. The Bristol numbers on non-parochial clergy are dire. We (St Albans) have been criticised for running too lean a ship at the centre (limited or no stewardship resources, for example) but at least that has meant the parishes are the priority.
Thanks Anthony. I ought to say that I have repeatedly asked these questions in AC, and mentioned all seven issues in our meeting on Tuesday.
But AC does not oversee the HoB, nor the dioceses. Our repeated frustration is that, in an episcopally led church, bishops can just do what they want, despite our encouragement, support, and advice. Bristol diocese is a case in point. But so are dioceses which, against our research evidence, cut clergy numbers and think that they will still be able to grow.
I am not sure what other questions you think I should know the answer to. I alone pressed AC to have a separate LLF risk register (against stiff archiepiscopal opposition) because I could see how damaging this has been to confidence.
And I think it is fair to say that I alone have pressed consistently on clergy stipend and pension. The bishops basically have done nothing, which I think is appalling.
Might it be time to extinguish the not massively ancient see of Bristol. Put the Bristol side in with Bath and Wells or Gloucester? The Swindon side in with Salisbury or Oxford?
Parishes and Benefices get put together, taken apart and shared around all the time. Why not dioceses?
Good question! And excellent comparison.
You don’t want to make Oxford any bigger though…
One point about C of E rural ministry: I have had experience of a church in an urban setting with a parish population of 35,000 and a Sunday attendance of around 100. Thats less than 0.3%.
I also have experience of rural parishes, one where the Parish population is 500 and a sunday attendance of 12. That’s 2.4% and that’s on a bad day. I could make inferences from that all day long but I’ll leave it to you.
Also, I notice almost no mention of that loyal, dedicated, faith-driven group of Cristians the Licensed Lay Ministers, Lay Readers, Worship Leaders, Pastoral and Childrens workers. Surely this is a time to give them more recognition, encouragement and autonomy. It’s not all about Clergy.
Those figures are fascinating! So how to respond? One figure you don’t include is age profile. I suspect your 12 are all over 70?
I agree that other lay ministers are vital. But many object that they cannot preside at communion, and so don’t ‘count’. (I don’t agree.)
Could someone explain to me as a non- Anglican why it is, that only ordained priests can preside at communion and where is the rationale for this in the Bible? Is it just tradition or does it have any real theological basis?
Priesthood of all believers anyone?
It’s a hangover from the mediaeval superstition called transubstantiation – invented as part of Rome’s system of social control – which supposedly requires an ordained priest to do the magic. The Church of England dumped transubstantiation but kept the ordination requirement, a position that Gavin Ashenden rightly described as schizophrenic.
I think the Church of England originally required preachers to be ordained as well. When it authorised lay people to preach, it undercut the reason for restricting leading communion to ordained priests.
But Anglican practice isn’t based on theological consistency; it is about sticking together, supposedly as a ‘via media’ between Rome and Geneva.
“I think the Church of England originally required preachers to be ordained as well.”
I’ll bet it did! That guaranteed that nobody would ever preach the priesthood of all believers, with Jesus Christ as High Priest, and consequently the fact that Ordination was not recognised in heaven as being anything beyond extensive study and training.
@James Thomson
There’s a sense that it undercuts it, but there’s another sense that it makes it more vital.
Part of being a church is being in fellowship with one another . That’s shown by the authority of the Bishop to ordain, commission and authorise clergy. If clergy is an “optional extra” – which would be the case if the laity can preach, perform the sacraments and everything else – then that would break that unity.
(Could not the bishops give this authority to lay readers? Well then they wouldn’t be lay – just less trained clergy.)
We get many requests for retired clergy and others with PTO to go and preside at communion at country churches. I’m sure those who go (as I have) are conscientious and reverent in their service, and are likely preaching as well.
But I do wonder why a local lay reader who is authorised to preach isn’t also authorised to lead communion. The Diocese of Sydney was planning to do this a few years ago but held back so as not to rock the boat too much. It is interesting that in Australia, while the bishops are heavily liberal, the Houses of Clergy and Laity are not and this has been a brake on the move for same-sex ‘marriage’ there. The House of Bishops itself is moving in a more traditional direction, largely because of Sydney and now Melbourne, where Ric Thorpe has been elected Archbishop.
Many Anglicans believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist; they simply do define in what way Christ is bodily present in the elements.
What ‘many Anglicans’ believe doesn’t tell us much—except that ‘many Anglicans’ don’t understand the doctrine of their own Church.
Cranmer’s liturgy, carried into 1662, clearly does not.
‘Don’t define’
It’s because the Church of England is a coalition, not really a church, and to keep this coalition going, it goes along with the Catholic idea that the ordained ministry is a priesthood “sacrificing in the Mass”. This is despite the fact that laypeople may lead worship, preach and even baptise if necessary.
In Anglicanism, holding together is the first principle.
Some bishops (e.g. I am told this happened in Canterbury diocese) have issued an edict forbidding communion services outside of church buildings. I am not sure if this claim is legal. I think this is intended to prevent non-episcopally-ordained ministers celebrating.
So it functions as a method of episcopal control because bishops authorise presbyters to minister and they can withdraw that authorisation. Non-episcopally ordained ministers (who often settle into Anglican churches – we had a Baptist and Methodist in ours) would make bishops a bit redundant and reduce their power.
I also would like to have the answer to this. Noted is the very wide variety of clergy views on Communion by Extension…
It’s called Deliveroo-nce ministry.
Er, I’ll get my cope.
Do you ever go to rural areas? Most of the population are either retired and over 70 or farmers. Young people normally leave to go to university and get a job in a big city or town, then maybe have a family and move to a suburb or commuter town or industrial town. They won’t come back to a rural area until retirement, only farmers tend to work and live there. There are a few young families in rural areas at primary schools, including children of farmers and agricultural workers and say the local publican and Vicar but they are a minority.
Thanks for this article and the challenges it raises.
Two more points to add to the mix:
1. Rural parishes are a different type of church because of their place within the whole local community/parish and shouldn’t be assessed by how far they fit the model of the larger town congregation. They have a lot to teach urban congregations about how to be parish churches as opposed to gathered congregations. That’s a difficult task but one worth attempting. I knew a conservative evangelical who was a brilliant parson in a rural parish – able to be faithful to his theology whilst also being a gentle and devoted minister to the whole parish. Sadly his successors narrowed things down and took a different approach so that many locals left to be replaced by true disciples from afar – a parish church has now been replaced by a gathered congregation but the mission of the church has not been improved.
2. As you rightly say ‘we have twice as many clergy per capita of population in the rural areas as we have in the urban. What is the justification for that? Are urban people less important in terms of their pastoral care and need to hear the gospel? ‘ Absolutely not. But there is an equally pressing question about why so many clergy are called to the south, rather than to the north. The northern dioceses struggle to attract clergy who, mysteriously, are so often called by God to Oxford, Cambridge, London, Bristol, etc. For years my evangelical theological college has sent four fifths or more of their new deacons to the south, not just the southern province, but the home counties and London. Are northern people less important in terms of their pastoral care and need to hear the gospel?
Thanks Tim.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rural are a different type of church’. How can there be such a different ‘type’? I don’t underestimate the social differences and historic roles of Anglican churches in villages.
But according to Anglican theology (found in the articles) the church is the congregation of men (and women) within which the word of God is preaching and the sacraments duly administered. We would now use the language of discipleships; if churches are not preaching the good news and calling people to follow Jesus, they are not being churches in the Anglican sense.
I understand the concerns your raise about being hospitable to the local community, and the dynamics of ‘gathered’ congregations. But I wonder if, theologically, you are overstating the differences.
Part of the reason that so many people stay in or migrate to the south is that they have family connections there, and often come from churches in the south which generate ordinands. I have addressed this in the past here: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/vicars-are-a-bunch-of-self-interested-southern-softies/
Here is the salient sentence:
London Diocese generates twice as many ordination candidates per church attender as the second most productive diocese.
Rural churches are normally the only churches of any denomination in their village or hamlet. So often have the full range of Christianity, even Roman Catholics as well as evangelicals worshipping in them which would never happen in a C of E town or city church. The Vicar is also normally better known in a village church than an urban church as a higher percentage of the population will be married or have a child baptised or attended a funeral they have done. Plus they are regularly present at village fetes and harvest suppers etc
Thanks for responding.
By ‘types’ I’m simply trying to capture something e.g. of the difference between the ways in which a church and its locality/parish relate, the nature of the boundaries between the congregation and the parish, the role of the clergy, etc. I think the distinction between ‘parish’ and ‘gathered’ congregations is really significant and in many ways is more so than the oft discussed differences between theological traditions; clergy can be more focused on the theological issues in order to differentiate themselves from others and because we’re very invested in our theological identity. The Article is correct (of course!) but it’s at a very general level, and even in the C16 and C17 it couldn’t have captured the actual reality on the ground of parish life across the country. It’s how we preach and call people to be disciples and administer the sacraments that needs to take account of the specific context of God’s creation. It’s still the ministry of word and sacrament, but it can require a different approach. Our theology can then be in part shaped by and discovered in the context rather than be something purely formed and brought to the context to be ‘applied.’ I realise this is a very different approach to that taken in traditional theological education (at least as I experienced it years ago) but I began to learn it when I worked with the church abroad in a radically different culture. I may have over-stated it, but I have seen clergy who try to transfer unchanged the model they have experienced in one setting to another with a sort of ‘essentialist’ understanding of the church and ministry and found it very frustrating or that it just doesn’t connect. I’ve found Bevans and Schroder’s work on contextual mission is very helpful in this area as is Bruce Reed’s work on congregational dynamics.
As a retired self supported priest aged 75. I have not taken up PTO there are too many ‘hoops’ to jump through. Also I haven’t offered any ministry offered to me that I can give without PTO as I would be stripped of my clerical coller if I chose to do them. Methodist ministers do not have a priest to have permission to undertake ministry. There is also a difference in retirement with stipend and non stipend as stipend will receive payment for services and self supported receive nothing! This is not scriptural …
Every person is worth their hire! No wonder priests aren’t taking on ministry post 70! Retired clergy without PTO cannot give in ministry hardly at all but Laity can minister in many areas that they can’t. I could elaborate more but I leave it there.
Thank you Jeanette. I agree with you that there are some serious contradictions in the regulations about ministry. They could do with sorting out…
Though in most (or maybe all?) dioceses retied clergy with PTO can choose to receive a fee for a service, including weddings and funerals. And lay ministers still need the authorisation of their bishop. PTO is simply the authority of the diocesan bishop to exercise public ministry; and nowadays it’s a requirement to complete safeguarding training and have a DBS check – no one can disagree with that and none of us would want to minister without them.
Thank you for such a comprehensive analysis, Ian.
At the risk of throwing a curveball, your thought provoking assessment made me wonder about the proportional demographics of present clergy (and ordinands) in relation to churchmanship, or, put more bluntly, theological orthodoxy. Are there any ways of measuring this?
I also wonder how we may see these demographics shift and change as the present emergence of church planting initiatives takes shape. Over time, it will surely be the case that new generations of disciples will mature and raise up new generations of leaders and clergy. Given that resource churches are obliged to report this kind of data, I wonder if any early trends are beginning to emerge already?
That is a question I also ask myself! My sense is that evangelical/orthodox numbers are growing proportionately, but it is hard to find any hard evidence for that.
Resource churches in my dioceses are generating most of the ordinands, and I have heard hints that this is the case elsewhere. When ministry looks exciting, people think about the possibility more…
My old C of E Vicar in London showed, taught and mentored many of us that being a church leader, vicar, pastor, preacher, evangelist is an honorable, admirable, attractive, rewarding, fun, deeply challenging experience and life’s highest calling. Through his ministry and encouragement there are around 20 (if not more) of us now in ordained ministry serving in different places around the world. Over the years I have sought to follow this model and to date know of 3 more people who I have had the privilege of caring for now in ordained ministry. I have come to believe that one of the most important things I and all ordained clergy can do, is actively pray, look for, mentor and disciple others, encouraging and urging them to consider ordination and church leadership – it’s the best! My prayer is that many more ‘will give their attention to prayer and the ministry of the word’ Act 6 v 4, even thought it is extremely costly and dangerous.
What a lovely testimony Warren. But it seems as though your commitment to this has not been shared across the whole church…!
Thanks for this. I had a similar experience of being one of many moving into ordained ministry (mainly but not only C of E) through a combination of a university chaplain, an open Christian Union and David Watson in York. Such experiences when we’re young can be very powerful and inspiring. We then followed a variety of paths and theological traditions from those early roots so have ended up in a very broad range of ministry, including theological education, hospital chaplaincy and cathedral ministry.
I am interested in your question about rural ministry and other denominations. What do they do? They withdraw. They close their churches. They retrench to centres of population. That is why many Anglican churches in the countryside will have in their congregations members of other denominations who want to worship in their communities. We should not fail them, especially as we are the last ones still present.
Exactly correct, in most rural areas only the Anglican churches still bother. The countryside isn’t trendy enough for Pentecostal churches and new churches and Baptist churches, not enough young people, not enough students as in the cities and university towns not enough catalogue perfect families as in the suburbs. No just mainly farmers, pensioners and cowpats.
The Roman Catholic church doesn’t have much of a presence there either, most Roman Catholic churches were built in the 19th and 20th centuries in towns and cities. Now of course most rural Anglican churches in the UK were originally RC, hence in ours we have some RC worshippers too but the RC church are focused on their own existing largely urban churches, as is the smaller UK Orthodox church
Jeremy, yes, I am aware that that has happened to many of them. But near us, there are some interesting counter examples—new churches planting ‘minster’ congregations in towns and then having small groups in villages (which looks to me like a workable model), and also Pentecostal churches in north Nottinghamshire.
I think my main observation would be that a. keeping a building and b. having a vicar rush in to ‘do the magic’ occasionally is not ‘maintaining a Christian witness’. Finding sustainable ways for people to come to and grow in faith is.
Jeremy’s comment has a lot of truth. We have a number of anglicans who come to our church (Baptist) but a lot of retrenchment has gone on within the denomination to maximise resources. This leads to concentration of effort mainly in towns and cities. Over time these large churches sometimes sent out plants in areas they have withdrawn from to ‘start again’ as it were in a different format. Some are successful and others are not.
Having a few people bible studying on a sofa in a village is NOT the village church. Keeping the centuries old often medieval church building going with a Vicar doing weddings, funerals and baptisms for Parishioners as well as weekly communion is.
That is correctly what Save the Parish are demanding Church Commissioners put the vast majority of C of E income and investment funds into, traditional Parish ministry not new trendy schemes and church plants. Having a Vicar visible in the community as well as the church will also help draw local people to faith.
If you disagree you are welcome to leave the Church of England and join one of the new or Pentecostal evangelical churches you are so keen on
Quite right.
Thanks
Simon, it is always odd when you suggest people leave because they don’t agree with your eccentric understanding of the Church of England and spiritual life.
The Church’s own doctrine does not say ‘Keeping a mediaeval building going is what matters’. And I don’t know if you are aware that weddings and funerals can be done by other people; the C of E has not had a monopoly for a long time, and the numbers of weddings and funerals has plummeted.
What does matter is preaching the word of God and rightly celebrating the sacraments.
Without congregations who give sacrificially and invite the next generation to discover real faith, your goal is unrealistic. And with so few clergy, it is unattainable.
No it is clearly you Ian who sometimes fails to understand what the Church of England is and its role in Parishes and as established church. The Church’s own doctrine makes clear it is the established church in England with Bishops and whose Supreme Governor is the King.
Medieval buildings and their
preservation are also a core part of its
role as established and national church.
In villages and rural areas in particular
people who are Christians want to get married in the village
or hamlet church they grew up in or
ultimately buried in the church of the
village they live in. That village church is
normally almost always Anglican, there
are rarely other denominations with
churches in rural areas.
Preaching the Word of God can be done in any Christian denomination, it is not exclusively Anglican. Celebrating the sacraments can also be done in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and sometimes non Anglican evangelical churches as well not just the Church of England.
The Church of England has £8 billion in assets and investments built over centuries and income from that. It is also one of the biggest landlords in the country. Unlike new evangelical churches it does not need large congregations to give to fund it as it has vast quantities of inherited wealth and income from it. What it needs to do is put that wealth into existing Parish churches and cathedrals and funding stipends for C of E clergy and preserving their vicarages and rectories.
If you want to focus on church plants and new churches by all means do so but in a new charismatic evangelical or Pentecostal church for example whose mission is growing new churches and congregations and self funding from them. That is not the mission of the established Church of England which is to preserve the existing churches and cathedrals it already has with its national and diocesan funds with a few evangelical church exceptions like HTB who self fund church plants themselves from their own funds
What you appear to be saying is that the Church of England is about buildings and money, and not about people coming to faith in Jesus Christ.
That not only contradicts everything the Articles say, it is also tragic. What did Jesus say about people who valued money and assets more than the reality of the kingdom of God transforming people’s lives?
Christians in our villages in particular want the chance to have weddings, funerals and baptisms in their local C of E church, normally the only church of any denomination in the area. It is their established church after all.
Spreading the word of God is done by any Christian denomination not just C of E. Even celebrating the sacraments regularly is done by Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches as well as some evangelical churches.
The Church of England anyway has 8 billion pounds in assets and investments and a large income from that and is one of the largest landlords in the country. New evangelical congregations don’t have that inherited wealth and rely more on congregation giving
Yes the Church of England is about its buildings and the services it offers to all parishioners as established church, weddings and funerals etc not just coming to faith through Jesus Christ. Though it does that too in its services.
You also certainly aren’t doing the work of God in people’s lives of you scrap Vicars visiting the sick and dying and troubled, close a building which has stood for centuries and offered services weddings, baptisms and funerals to offer a few bible readings on the sofa!
Simon, is it too much to ask that you use both your names? Everyone else manages it.
Geoff, Jon’s and Liz don’t just on a glance through this thread. Nor should they be forced to either, otherwise you are preventing people commenting freely who hold roles or any position of responsibility that might otherwise inhibit that. I have never otherwise posted on a blog that requires full name
I have asked each of them to do so. Other blogs (like TA) are full of unpleasant comments as people hide behind anonymity.
If a poster is being very abusive or unpleasant just ban them
“Trendy schemes and church plants”?
Absolutely…those trendy Cistersians coming over here, planting abbeys and creating a wave of scattered satellite fellowships.
Parish Churches didn’t spring up by themselves. And a building is not the aim of the gospel or, remarkably, the CofE. Bene is not esse…
At a time there were few if any churches and Christian buildings of any denomination. There are now 16 000 Church of England churches and cathedrals serving cities, towns and villages across England as befits our now established national church. Those buildings have spread the gospel in our land for centuries.
Over the last few years we members of Save the Parish have been quitely mobilising, raising funds and electing Synod members and now after a decade of evangelicals largely running the show under Welby we are ready to take our chance with the new Archbishop.
We want national and diocesan funds spent on Parishes, stipendiary priests and our historic Church of England churches above all not grand schemes and church plants. After a few small wins under the inspirational leadership of Marcus Walker Save the Parish is now ready for a decade long campaign to push the new Archbishop, Synod and Church Commissioners and Dioceses to put Parish ministry first in our established church and will npt stop until that is achieved
A small but significant correction, if I may: the current Diocese of Leeds was formed from an amalgamation of the three predecessor Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon (which had been restyled “Ripon and Leeds” in the recent past), and *Wakefield*. Originally, the newly amalgamated diocese wasn’t going to be called “Leeds” because (1) that would irritate people from other parts of the diocese which had never looked to Leeds; (2) there is no Church of England cathedral in Leeds as it had never been an episcopal seat; and (3) there was already a Catholic Diocese of Leeds, so there would be unnecessary confusion. But then they just called it the Diocese of Leeds anyway, much to the annoyance of many people in the Diocese and the Roman Catholic Church. So it’s been a bit of a botch job by the CofE hierarchy. Who would have thought?
Golly–thanks for the correction. I will change the article. How quickly I have forgotten Wakefield!
But what should the new diocese have been called?
Btw I asked ChatGPT to merge dioceses, and it suggested this:
Northern England:
• Dioceses of Newcastle and Durham could merge, given proximity and shared resources.
• Dioceses of Carlisle and Blackburn – both relatively small populations, northern industrial heritage.
Midlands:
• Dioceses of Lichfield and Derby – both cover industrial/urban areas and could consolidate administration.
• Dioceses of Leicester and Peterborough – close enough geographically and overlapping commuting regions.
South & East England:
• Dioceses of Guildford and Winchester – southern dioceses with overlapping commuter belts could merge.
• Dioceses of St Albans and Chelmsford – both in the affluent commuter belt; combining could streamline administration.
Wales-border and West Country:
• Dioceses of Bath & Wells and Bristol – neighboring regions, potentially a unified diocese.
• Dioceses of Exeter and Truro – smaller rural populations, could consolidate resources.
Lichfield also covers fast rural areas … as diverse as the Staffordshire moorlands, and Market Drayton.
And who did ChatGPT give as the next Archbishop?
That’s excellent! Chat GPT might bring more wisdom to the debate than some of our bishops!! I have to say, though, that I’m not in favour of mergers. Of course, there is plenty of scope to reduce excessive diocesan bureaucracy – we can certainly streamline things and probably should. But in my experience, mergers are a kind of corporate management response, often done without clear theological or missional reasoning. The effect is usually just to spread diminishing resources ever more thinly. Look at the Methodists, for example. What is required is faithful and competent leadership, not mergers.
On the alternative name for what is now the Diocese of Leeds, I took leaf out of your book and asked Chat GPT. The answer is that it was originally suggested that the new diocese be called the Diocese of Wakefield! However, apparently everyone (including Wakefield) objected to that. Another suggestion (which is the one I remember) was West Yorkshire and the Dales. The problem with that was there are significant chunks of both South and North Yorkshire in the merged diocese and almost none of the dales! Something like South West Yorkshire might have worked, but nobody suggested that.
I was born in North Yorkshire…. now allocated to Teesside. Boundaries aren’t what they used to be!
South West Yorkshire… ? It’d never pass muster.
ChatGPT is, however, mad.
If you want to slim down the dioceses, I continue to think:
1) Accept the Archbishops are national leaders, and stop pretending they’re just diocesans who occasionally get asked to do something on the national stage. Remove most of their diocesan responsibilities (e.g. shrink them to the cities of Canterbury and York only if you must).
2) Create a new Archbishop at Winchester. So Canterbury really is the national leader – then York in the north, and Winchester in the south.
3) Have a consolidation to create dioceses of roughly similar sizes:
London, Chelmsford, St Albans, Southwark, Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield, and Lichfield stay as they are.
New dioceses of Rochester (take over most of Canterbury), Chichester (+ Guildford), Exeter (+ Truro), Bristol (+ Bath + Gloucester), Coventry (+ Birmingham), Liverpool (+ Chester), Manchester (+ Blackburn), Durham (+ Newcastle + Carlisle), Lincoln (+ Nottingham), Derby (+ Leicester), Ely (+ Peterborough), Norwich (+ St Edmundsbury), Salisbury (+ Portsmouth and take over most of Winchester), Hereford (+ Worcester), and Ripon (to take over most of York).
That would leave us with 3 Archbishops and 23 diocesan Bishops, which neatly matches the 26 seats on the Bishops bench in the House of Lords, with roughly equal dioceses adjusted by merging rather than drawing totally new boundaries so you can transition over as the bishops retire / move on.
What do you mean by ‘national leaders’? What should archbishops decided by way of that ‘leadership’? And why does a smaller church suddenly need *more* leaders at the top? We have been doing just fine with only one archbishop; I dare to say we would be doing fine with one less…!
Leeds is the biggest and best-known city in West Yorkshire. So “Diocese of Leeds” is the common-sense solution in the eyes of Joe Public. Better for the CofE to choose common-sense solutions over eccentric ones. Not at all a botch job imho.
Well this is the thing. someone said ‘Don’t put Truro and Exeter together—you will light the Tamar with fire!’
But the idea that how the C of E is organised determines identity is ridiculous and living in the past. The Catholics have 22 dioceses covering England and Wales. Why shouldn’t we match them?
Comparing the Catholic structure with the CofE is a poor comparison imo. For one thing, their histories are quite different. For another, there are many fewer Catholic parishes. Also, many Catholics consider their dioceses are too big.
Yeah, but it also includes Barnsley, which isn’t part of West Yorkshire, never mind Leeds! Leeds isn’t an episcopal seat, and never has been.
I seem to recall that at some point in the merger of the Yorkshire Diocese it was going to be (or indeed was) called the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. That seems suitably long-winded for the Cof E.
Ian, I just wanted to leave a comment thanking you for this very important article, which is just as pressing an issue here in Canada as it is on your side of the pond, although perhaps not for identical reasons.
A couple of things.
First, as I said over at Thinking Anglicans, leadership helps and one person can make a difference. When Victoria Matthews was our bishop here in the Diocese of Edmonton, she made youth and young adult ministry a priority; she was personally involved in retreats and pilgrimages for youth and young adults, had many personal conversations, and kept an eagle eye open for signs of a vocation to ordination. At her initiative, a good number of young people in the Diocese of Edmonton were sponsored for ordination. 18 years after she left our diocese, many of those young people are now clergy in leadership positions, and they are excellent people.
Second, I myself came into ministry as a Church Army captain in 1978, and was ordained in 1990. So when I retired at the end of 2003 I had 45 years of full time ministry behind me, even though I was only 65. But I was tired out from the stress of Covid, very aware that I no longer had the energy to lead a parish which was growing and including a lot of new members from Africa. When I retired, my wife and I started attending a local Mennonite church, partly because we like the Mennonite way and partly because I wanted to be left alone for a while, and didn’t have confidence that an Anglican parish would leave me alone. Now, 21 months later, I’m still licensed as a priest of the Diocese of Edmonton and do some adult ed and clergy support work for the bishop, but our Sunday home is still the Mennonite church.
I guess I just wanted to make the point that some clergy who retire and don’t immediately seek what you in the C of E call ‘PTO’ are probably in the same position as I was – genuinely burnt out, feeling their physical powers diminishing etc. Fortunately, my bishop has been very pastoral in his approach to me, but others in the diocese have found it hard that I didn’t immediately join the merry band of Sunday supply clergy. But there it is.
Anyway, thanks again for this excellent post.
Tim, thanks for sharing your really helpful experience.
I agree that leadership matters on this—and it appears to have been singularly lacking.
But I think it also needs two others things: confidence in the national church and its profile; and people modelling healthy ministry. Low clergy morale has hindered the second, and statements in the media by bishops has hindered the first.
George Carey said in the press over the weekend: ‘We squander our influence with easy platitudes.’ There has been much squandering.
PS the discussion on TA is fascinating in its predictable obsession with gay sex…!
Totally agree with what you say about people modelling healthy ministry, Ian. As far as ‘the national church and its profile’ goes, well, I wouldn’t feel qualified to comment on that, since we’re not an established church. Also, our profile took a nasty knock when the residential schools stories started coming out, and I don’t think we’re done repenting of that yet.
Just building on the earlier discussion about new churches.
I’m someone who grew up in the C of E then in my 20s I moved to a “new church” as in the city I was living the C of E churches were of quite a different tradition to mine. I stayed with them until my late 30s and then moved back to the C of E, where I’ve been joined with many others from a similar background.
One thing about the new church I was in – Newfrontiers, is that they don’t have a centralised discernment or significant training, so opportunities can depend on what your church needs. (It’s rare to advertise for ministry posts) I found there were more people wanting to do things in their 20s and 30s than paid roles going, as large urban churches can be fairly efficient in terms of staffing per member. I know of at least several people from Newfrontiers who are now in ministry in the C of E.
If a poster is being very abusive or unpleasant just ban them
I seem to remember some statistic which indicated very few “large” churches were led by women. Are there any up to date statistics on this – across the churches or specifically in the Church of England? If so, regardless of one’s theological understanding of male and female leadership, is this a relevant factor in considering appointments etc?
I’ve been reflecting on this for a few days, and there’s one aspect I’d be interested to get your views on. In one part you’re concerned about whether bishops are leading, and in another part discussing whether we have too many dioceses / bishops, and questioning staffing costs. Clearly some important topics, but what’s not clear is the underpinning. In other words, what is our theology and/or ecclesiology of why dioceses and bishops exist?
It seems to me that sometimes dioceses are framed in terms of institutions and administrations – like a discussion of the best model for regional hubs for a supermarket supply chain. More rarely, diocese and bishops are framed in spiritual terms and as part of our ecclesiology. I’m deeply underwhelmed by the former, and strongly drawn to the latter.
I’ve been trying to read up on this a bit, and found the liturgy very helpful (but not a lot more). When people talk about the importance of the ‘cure of souls’ in a parish, the liturgical context is “Receive this cure of souls which is both yours and mine” – in other words, belonging both to the priest and to the bishop. That defines a relationship and a shared task, and I wonder how well we are centering our discussion of the diocesan in that ecclesiology, that must predate any diocesan board of finance by many centuries.
I’m not looking to make a particular point or take issue with some aspect of church politics – although I see that it is a topic that could easily be freighted with such things. As I say, it just strikes me as something we’re pretty vague on – and would very much welcome correction or pointers on this topic.
Thanks. Interesting thoughts.
My honest response is: I cannot think of a single theological justification for the diocese. Theologically, I am not ever sure it exists.
Is that too stark a response?
Not too stark if that’s what you think!
In that vein, does that mean the same could be said about the parish and other structures? Anyway, I’m sure there are lots of tangents that could be explored…
Taking for a moment the assumption that the concept of a bishop is both theologically sound and in accordance with Anglican tradition, a diocese is the geographical area where a bishop has authority. If it is a reasonable step to take to see leadership in the early church as having geographic centres or boundaries then, whatever it is called, a diocese is a term for that geographic authority that has biblical precedent.
I am not sure that equates to saying that a specific form of organisational structure is sacred, but I do think it is reasonable to see particular roles as ordained, and their geographic scope of some significance. Personally, I am comfortable with the idea of a specific apostolic calling through my theology, tradition, and direct experience.
What I’m suggesting is that being part of a diocese emanates from that spiritual calling of and relationship with those called to episcopal ministry, rather than from an institutional structure. The Body of Christ encompasses many roles that are perhaps not in practice given the status and respect they should be, but the roles of bishops and priests are clearly a foundational part of Anglican ecclesiology.
Putting it another way: It is a well-trodden path to discuss how people at a parish level can fall into thinking ‘church’ is the building and what you do on a Sunday morning, and in the same way I wonder if we’ve fallen into thinking that the role of a bishop and their area of authority amounts to managing an accounting team and safeguarding (both of which are important, and those doing the work should be valued, but hopefully see the point I’m making). I’m convinced there is a lot more to being ‘episcopally led’.
If we don’t really know what bishops are for, or what we can expect from them, or why we bother with diocesan structures (beyond the supermarket analogy) then it is very hard for us to converse constructively about them – or for bishops to be seen to fulfill the role they are called to.
There’s a lot more I’m still mulling over related to this, but my basic thesis at this point is that diocesan bishops are, in their apostolic calling to have authority in a place, important, and *that* is what defines a diocese, and any corporate structure (if / as necessary) should follow that.
I know that the relationship between bishop and clergy in their diocese is not always straightforward for all sorts of reasons. However, that relationship matters, and there is a good biblical basis for as much unity of the Body of Christ as we can stand to enter into (ok, perhaps even more than that!). That’s not the same as agreement on all matters of debate, but it is an agreement to stay in relationship with one another, to recognise and respect all our roles as one body.
Does that scan?