The CofE faces financial unviability

It's as well that I'm feeling a call to explore a bivocational future, because looking at this, I have serious doubts that the kind of church-based ministry that I feel pulled towards is not going to be funded unless the CofE decides to be a darn sight more entrepreneurial with its inherited funds than I think it has the stomach for. Of course panic could set in and radical moves could be made.

David Kemp, the Canterbury diocesan secretary, said financial strains could lead to a cut in the number of clergy.
He said: "Legislation and regulation is adding to the cost of employment and we will have to rethink models of ministry."
He predicted that by 2020, the number of full-time clergy in his diocese could be slashed by almost half.

Personally I think that the rapidly approaching unviability means that we need to think pretty radically about the way we do local church and also national coverage. Two provinces inherited from when the population was distributed differently, was lower and when the north was the wild frontier is not really 'it' I think. I've been revisiting a blog post of mine from a couple of years back, perhaps unity with the Methodists might put this back on the table.

It's a beast trying to find the article on the Church Times' web site [though maybe the new link, below, will work], so I'm hoping that the author, Gareth Miller, won't mind a substantial chunk appearing here.

To find a new direction for the Church, use a map
By Gareth Miller

...Over the past two years or so, headlines such as these have run in the Church Times and the wider press: “The diocese can’t afford to pay its clergy.” “Secret plan to reduce the number of dioceses.” “Top-heavy Church is failing surf generation.” “Third archbishop needed to ease burden.” “There is no pastoral care of the clergy in this diocese.”

I want to suggest a solution that would seem to be the answer to a number of these problems, as well as providing a fresher, more logical, simplified, and more ecclesiologically coherent framework for the C of E. I propose that there should be a larger number of dioceses, grouped into a larger number of provinces. ...
Though I propose more dioceses, I envisage no significant increase in the number of bishops — under my scheme, there will be no need for area bishops and suffragans. Many of the services and functions currently carried out at diocesan level will be moved to a central office at provincial level.

I propose ten provinces, drawn up so as largely to cohere with the nine government regions in England, namely: London, the South-East, the South-West, the East of England, the West Midlands, the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North-West and the North-East. The only exception would be the South-East, because this region is so large and diverse (a factor also noted by many in the civil administration of the South-East). This would be divided into two provinces, Canterbury and Winchester, and would mean the Archbishop of Canterbury had only a small province, in view of his other heavy responsibilities. The metropolitan see cities will be Canterbury, York, London, Winchester, Durham, Exeter, Ely (or, possibly, Norwich), Birmingham (or, possibly, Lichfield), Lincoln, Liverpool.

Each province will be headed by an archbishop whose task will be, first, the immediate pastoral care of a small number of parishes in the metropolitical see city (and, possibly, the district/deanery). The archbishop will also take pastoral care of the bishops in the province; visit the dioceses in the province; and hold a distinctive national position (for instance, the chairmanship of a board or commission. The archbishop may also hold other responsibilities, as may be thought fit.

The metropolitan see city will generally be one with a large cathedral, which will assume the position of mother church of the province. It will be the place for major provincial occasions, including consecrations (rather than London, as so often at present) and, possibly, ordinations.

Provincial See City and Office
The cathedral in the provincial headquarters will be fully staffed with a dean and chapter of up to six canons. Two of the canons will be the archdeacon and the precentor. The other three will, in addition to their residential duties in the cathedral, have major jobs within the province as directors of education, ministry, training, or similar responsibilities. The archdeacon, though having care of a small area (coterminous with that of the archbishop), would be the senior archdeacon in the province (as are the present Archdeacons of Canterbury and York), and would chair gatherings of fellow archdeacons. He or she would assume a supportive and pastoral position, as well as having a clearly defined position in the cathedral. The provincial office will assume many of the responsibilities of the present dioceses, and will be headed by a senior layman. Areas of competence will include finance, education, training, and ministry.

The dioceses
The aim of this proposal is to make the dioceses smaller, simpler and more coherent, and the bishops more accessible and in closer pastoral contact with their clergy and people. This will be done by moving many current diocesan functions and committees to provincial level, thereby increasing efficiency and avoiding excessive bureaucracy and duplication of limited resources. It will also free bishops and archdeacons from having to sit on a large number of committees.

Each diocese will have one bishop and one archdeacon, whose areas will be geographically coterminous. The diocese will have a small office, probably containing the bishop’s and archdeacon’s offices under the same roof, together with such support staff as may be necessary to maintain and service a scaled-down diocese. The bishop may have a (part-time?) chaplain. Each diocese will normally co-here with local government boundaries. This will make it much easier for church dignitaries to relate to the civil authorities, and to take part in local events. The bishop will be the pastor of an area that is universally recognised as a unit.
This will reinforce the concept of one bishop in one place (without the confusing role of suffragans — essentially episcopal curates), and will help bishops to be seen as the focus of unity.

Each bishop will have his seat in his own cathedral. Clearly, in many cases the cathedral will be a large and ancient one, with its own statutes and establishment. I would hope that, in due course, these cathedrals would be able to manage with a slimmed-down regime; but this may take time, and, obviously, larger and older cathedrals tend to need more personnel than do parish-church cathedrals. However, many of the proposed dioceses will already have parish-church cathedrals (for instance, Bradford, Chelmsford, Derby). Others will have to be created. ...

In all cases, though, the cathedral will run with a fairly modest staff, namely dean, archdeacon, precentor, and possibly a minor canon or succentor. Now that the bishop is able to be more pastorally involved in the diocese, the archdeacon should be able to play a fuller part in the life of the cathedral, and thus avoid the need to have another residentiary canon.

The precise boundaries of deaneries would be a matter for diocesan debate. The boundaries of the district council might be appropriate, though in some places they might also be too large. Simplified and smaller dioceses will also prove attractive to ecumenical partners, especially the Methodist Church, whose system of districts and chairmen is similar.

Problems
... Some might say that having only one bishop and one archdeacon in each diocese would focus attention too much on particular personalities, and rob a diocese of the variety of gifts and characters afforded by the present system. This is an important point, but I feel it is outweighed by the advantages of these proposals, and should be counterbalanced by the strongly collegial nature of the provincial structure. There would still be assistant and retired bishops, and the archbishop would be a regular visitor to each diocese.

It might also seem that a blanket scheme such as this is too centralist. There is much to be said for local solutions, ... Yet the relatively recent review of local-authority boundaries, and the creation of unitary authorities in some places but not in others, has led to a messy situation; and I would hope that the Church would embrace a more coherent solution.
... desperate times call for desperate remedies. Or, as Tony Blair said at the Labour Party Conference: “The radical solution is usually the right one.” What do you think?

Telegraph | News | Worshippers asked for �10m to cover pensions shortfall:
Filed in: CofE, finance, clergy, pensions