Why we must stand up against the Bishop's mega-parish
Devastating flaws in the Bishop of Truro's plans for giant benefices in Cornwall have been exposed by a top Save The Parish analyst. Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, a member of Save The Parish's national committee, put the case very clearly to a packed public meeting at Truro Library on Monday. The sweeping pastoral reorganisations in On The Way schemes planned by the Rt Rev Philip Mounstephen and his team threaten to be a disaster, he said. They have failed elsewhere and they will fail here.
Read on for the full text:
I want to dwell on three reasons why mega-parishes are a very bad idea. And then I want to encourage you to stand up against them:· First reason - there is no financial need for the Bishop of Truro to be doing this to your much loved parishes.
· Second reason - these large structures of mega parishes such as are being proposed across the diocese from Kerrier to East Wivelshire are very unlikely to work as intended. They will not bring fruitfulness and sustainability; they will bring decline with permanent and deepening severance between the clergy and parishioners.
· Third reason - Forming a Joint Council or ‘Single PCC’ does not save on administration and will increase costs. I will explain why. And the diocese can force a ‘Single parish’ on you – provided the Church Commissioners agree.
And therefore - you must have the courage to complain if you don’t like what is being done to your
 |
| Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent |
SO, FIRST MONEY.
The financial case for the mega-parish and any cuts in clergy is an illusion. I will try to explain why:
In the Truro Diocesan accounts for the calendar year 2021 it was stated that “The 2021 operating budget deficit was £1.3m … This prompted a piece of work which resulted in the introduction of On the Way in January 2021”. So be in no doubt the reason given for the On the Way project is to save money. But there is no need to save money by cutting clergy. There is enough money available to pay all of the current 64 stipendary clergy.
If they want to save money, they should cut office jobs, not clergy.
The Church of England as a whole, and Truro Diocese in particular, both have plenty of money. The Church of England has an ‘income’ of £1.4B per annum – of which 70% comes from parishes. Truro Diocese has a basic income of £7M this year – of which the largest part comes from parishes.
The Truro Diocese, along with every other diocese, has a Stipends Fund. This is money that came from the centralisation of parish glebe land and investments in 1976. It is money raised by parishes, for parishes. Parliament mandated that this money was only to be used for paying stipendary clergy. But it was to be used, not hoarded. Our analysis of Truro’s published diocesan accounts shows that Truro’s Stipends Fund is worth £39M. Each year the diocese can spend the income and a certain percentage of the capital growth of the fund. Truro Diocese has not been doing this to sufficient degree – which is why they have had a deficit for the last few years.
At last they have woken up to this and in 2023 will be spending an extra £1.5M from the Stipends Fund. This is NOT money “from reserves” as the diocese would have you believe. It is money set aside for paying clergy. With grants from the Church Commissioners this raises the total income of the diocese to £9.6M. Their expenditure is also £9.6M.
So the so called deficit of £2.5M is in fact covered by grants and capital growth of the Stipends Fund. That is what this money is for.
In spite of claims to the contrary, there is no deficit this year because parish money held by the diocese is being spent how it is supposed to be spent. Spending the Stipends Fund on stipends. Hello!
I don’t believe that On The Way is financially necessary. So I can’t help but wonder if the emphasis given to shortage of money is deliberate to put pressure on parishes and deaneries to vote for unwelcome changes.
If there is a shortage of money, it is because there are too many bureaucrats. According to the Diocese’s own figures there are 38 office staff in Truro for 64 stipendary clergy. That’s more then 1 for every 2 clergy. The elephant in the counting house is the number of bureaucrats.
Don’t worry too much about all these numbers because – unless you are an accountant - if you challenge the diocese on them you will be bamboozled. Just be confident that the diocese has sufficient money – from parish share and the stipends fund – including support from the Church Commissioners – to pay all the current 64 stipendary clergy.
The recent leaflet published by the diocese states “The diocese is not cutting vicars. The diocese has not dictated the plans, the planning has been locally led”
One way to find out really what is going on in any organisation is to look at the budget. The budget for this year (2023) funds only 54 stipends – whereas last year (2022) it was 64. Don’t tell me that deaneries have asked – of their own volition - for a cut of 10 clergy across the diocese. If the budget was set at the November Diocesan Synod to reduce the stipends budget by 10 clergy, why does a FAQ leaflet in January say they are not cutting vicars? Are you being hoodwinked?
So don’t let them tell you they are not cutting stipendary clergy. They are. From 64 to 54 in just one year. And how does that possibly make parishes more ‘fruitful and sustainable’? How come Deanery Synods have apparently voted for this reduction on 10 paid clergy?
SECONDLY, THESE MEGA-PARISH SCHEMES DON’T WORK AS INTENDED.
The mega-parish scheme started to be rolled out in Wales about ten years ago. Here are two descriptions of how things are in Mission Areas (as they are called in Wales; they have even abolished the word parish) –
“In our “Mission Area” in St Asaph Diocese, there are 13 parish churches, all old, often quirky and with notable features (eg. Mediaeval murals/stained glass and ‘double naves’) and several in imminent danger, as ours is, of likely closure, as there are only two regular priests staffing them, occasionally helped out when any suitable candidates make themselves available. Money is very tight.”
Our correspondent continues
“Our small, beautiful, much loved church is in imminent danger of being closed by the Diocese. We are not alone in this plight and like churches in England, churches in Wales are being closed at an unbelievable rate, and for no good reason. Finance of course being the reason given. I simply cannot convey to you how sad, let-down and disheartened we all feel at the situation we are facing.”
And mega-parishes don’t work financially. In Wigan, in the Diocese of Liverpool, where 29 parishes have been turned into 6, the parish share request has been lowered by 17%. Their financial difficulties have got worse, not better. A colleague is the Diocese of Leicester, where similar schemes are being rolled out, estimates that giving may drop by 50%.
Some will say that things are different in Wales because they are not part of the Church of England.
But call it a parish, call it a mega-parish or call it a Mission Area – they do not produce ‘fruitfulness or sustainability’, or growth, or happiness, or pastoral care, or a vicar who knows the people of the locality.
The diocese says “No [similar] schemes are far enough advanced to be able to evaluate their outcomes.” Not true – ask the Welsh. Even the CofE's own document GS2222 acknowledged that this model does not appear to have worked well in Wales
Mega-parishes produce permanent severance from familiar local clergy, the end of pastoral care, the impossibility of weekly Sunday services and result in terminal decline of some churches.
And forget trying to get hold of a vicar you know to bury your loved ones.
In a recent circular the Bishop of Truro implies that parishes are ‘old things’ – the suggestion is not that they are old historically – which of course most of them are – but that they are ‘old things’, like a Hoover, that needs to be replaced by ‘new things’ such as a Dyson. That’s a most strange way to look at a parish. The parishes are simply the Church of England’s ‘presence in every community’. (“A Christian Presence in every Community” is the C of E’s strapline, advertised on its website). Parishes are a precious asset that is neither new nor old, but which need the positive support of the diocese to keep thriving.
Lord Kitchener famously said “Your Country needs You”. I say “Your Parish needs a Vicar” – not a twentieth share of a ‘Team Ministry Leader’.
THIRD - FORMING A MEGA-PARISH, A JOINT COUNCIL OR ‘SINGLE PCC’ DOES NOT SAVE ON ADMINISTRATION BUT WILL INCREASE COSTS.
Whatever the structure of a mega-parish and its churches, at each church somebody has to count the collection and know what to do with it. Somebody has to mow the grass the way the village likes it – some areas of longer grass for wildlife, for example. Somebody has to run the summer fair and decide where the profit goes – to the mega-parish or to your church. Who will handle the cash? Who will decide? How?
Who will clean the church, put the bins out, arrange the flowers, buy more tea bags and coffee, bring fresh milk on a Sunday? The answer, we know, is volunteers. But they need encouragement, thanks and finding new ones, as others retire or move away. And they need leadership – from a vicar.
Who will take the services on Sundays and at baptisms, weddings and funerals when the clergy are reduced still further in number? Where will the remaining clergy live when your parish’s Vicarage is sold off? How far will they have to travel to come to your parish?
Are the mega-parish PCC going to do all this for you? No way!
Everything you did before you go into a mega-parish will still have to be done. All that would be achieved is another layer of administration to add to the Rural Dean, the Archdeacon and the Bishop’s staff. So that is 4 layers, rather than the current 3.
And guess what – the complexity of running a mega-parish will mean that paid administrators will be needed. The draft Kerrier Deanery Plan shows a paid Administrator and a paid Finance Officer.
Who is going to pay them? Guess who. Sooner or later the people of Kerrier!
The Penwith Deanery draft is proposing to have a Discipleship Coordinator, 4 Children and Family Workers, a Kingdom Enterprise Officer, and a Pilgrimage and Hospitality Officer. Where are these people going to come from and how much will they cost? Wouldn’t they rather have one more vicar?
I ask again, how did these absurdities get through the Deanery Synod?
These people will add costs – which in due course you will have to find from your parish share. That’s what ‘sustainable’ means. Oh yes – that won’t go away! Parish share (or MMF as it is called) will go up to pay the Administrator and the Finance Officer – not down because you have no vicar. Some deanery plans envisage doubling the number of donors and doubling the amount given by each donor. This in exchange for no vicar.
How did Deanery Synods fall for this?
Across Cornwall how can there be improvements in ‘fruitfulness and sustainability’ by replacing clergy with administrators? There are already too many administrators.
These schemes can steal all your parish assets – all your reserves – all your carefully collected giving – all your legacies - and still leave you – without a vicar – and dependent on volunteers to run everything.
AND FINALLY – PLEASE HAVE THE COURAGE TO COMPLAIN IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT IS BEING DONE TO YOUR PARISH.
If these schemes are implemented on the ‘Single Parish, Single PCC’ model, you will not have your own church PCC or any of your current assets, rights and responsibilities. Recent FAQ from the diocese suggests they cannot force this on a deanery.
Well – the diocese can play semantic tricks with the word ‘forced’. If the diocese proposes a single parish deanery, and the Church Commissioners agree (in spite of any objections) – then it will be ‘forced’ upon you.
So the so called deficit of £2.5M is in fact covered by grants and capital growth of the Stipends Fund. That is what this money is for.
In spite of claims to the contrary, there is no deficit this year because parish money held by the diocese is being spent how it is supposed to be spent. Spending the Stipends Fund on stipends. Hello!
I don’t believe that On The Way is financially necessary. So I can’t help but wonder if the emphasis given to shortage of money is deliberate to put pressure on parishes and deaneries to vote for unwelcome changes.
If there is a shortage of money, it is because there are too many bureaucrats. According to the Diocese’s own figures there are 38 office staff in Truro for 64 stipendary clergy. That’s more then 1 for every 2 clergy. The elephant in the counting house is the number of bureaucrats.
Don’t worry too much about all these numbers because – unless you are an accountant - if you challenge the diocese on them you will be bamboozled. Just be confident that the diocese has sufficient money – from parish share and the stipends fund – including support from the Church Commissioners – to pay all the current 64 stipendary clergy.
The recent leaflet published by the diocese states “The diocese is not cutting vicars. The diocese has not dictated the plans, the planning has been locally led”
One way to find out really what is going on in any organisation is to look at the budget. The budget for this year (2023) funds only 54 stipends – whereas last year (2022) it was 64. Don’t tell me that deaneries have asked – of their own volition - for a cut of 10 clergy across the diocese. If the budget was set at the November Diocesan Synod to reduce the stipends budget by 10 clergy, why does a FAQ leaflet in January say they are not cutting vicars? Are you being hoodwinked?
So don’t let them tell you they are not cutting stipendary clergy. They are. From 64 to 54 in just one year. And how does that possibly make parishes more ‘fruitful and sustainable’? How come Deanery Synods have apparently voted for this reduction on 10 paid clergy?
SECONDLY, THESE MEGA-PARISH SCHEMES DON’T WORK AS INTENDED.
The mega-parish scheme started to be rolled out in Wales about ten years ago. Here are two descriptions of how things are in Mission Areas (as they are called in Wales; they have even abolished the word parish) –
“In our “Mission Area” in St Asaph Diocese, there are 13 parish churches, all old, often quirky and with notable features (eg. Mediaeval murals/stained glass and ‘double naves’) and several in imminent danger, as ours is, of likely closure, as there are only two regular priests staffing them, occasionally helped out when any suitable candidates make themselves available. Money is very tight.”
Our correspondent continues
“Our small, beautiful, much loved church is in imminent danger of being closed by the Diocese. We are not alone in this plight and like churches in England, churches in Wales are being closed at an unbelievable rate, and for no good reason. Finance of course being the reason given. I simply cannot convey to you how sad, let-down and disheartened we all feel at the situation we are facing.”
And mega-parishes don’t work financially. In Wigan, in the Diocese of Liverpool, where 29 parishes have been turned into 6, the parish share request has been lowered by 17%. Their financial difficulties have got worse, not better. A colleague is the Diocese of Leicester, where similar schemes are being rolled out, estimates that giving may drop by 50%.
Some will say that things are different in Wales because they are not part of the Church of England.
But call it a parish, call it a mega-parish or call it a Mission Area – they do not produce ‘fruitfulness or sustainability’, or growth, or happiness, or pastoral care, or a vicar who knows the people of the locality.
The diocese says “No [similar] schemes are far enough advanced to be able to evaluate their outcomes.” Not true – ask the Welsh. Even the CofE's own document GS2222 acknowledged that this model does not appear to have worked well in Wales
Mega-parishes produce permanent severance from familiar local clergy, the end of pastoral care, the impossibility of weekly Sunday services and result in terminal decline of some churches.
And forget trying to get hold of a vicar you know to bury your loved ones.
In a recent circular the Bishop of Truro implies that parishes are ‘old things’ – the suggestion is not that they are old historically – which of course most of them are – but that they are ‘old things’, like a Hoover, that needs to be replaced by ‘new things’ such as a Dyson. That’s a most strange way to look at a parish. The parishes are simply the Church of England’s ‘presence in every community’. (“A Christian Presence in every Community” is the C of E’s strapline, advertised on its website). Parishes are a precious asset that is neither new nor old, but which need the positive support of the diocese to keep thriving.
Lord Kitchener famously said “Your Country needs You”. I say “Your Parish needs a Vicar” – not a twentieth share of a ‘Team Ministry Leader’.
THIRD - FORMING A MEGA-PARISH, A JOINT COUNCIL OR ‘SINGLE PCC’ DOES NOT SAVE ON ADMINISTRATION BUT WILL INCREASE COSTS.
Whatever the structure of a mega-parish and its churches, at each church somebody has to count the collection and know what to do with it. Somebody has to mow the grass the way the village likes it – some areas of longer grass for wildlife, for example. Somebody has to run the summer fair and decide where the profit goes – to the mega-parish or to your church. Who will handle the cash? Who will decide? How?
Who will clean the church, put the bins out, arrange the flowers, buy more tea bags and coffee, bring fresh milk on a Sunday? The answer, we know, is volunteers. But they need encouragement, thanks and finding new ones, as others retire or move away. And they need leadership – from a vicar.
Who will take the services on Sundays and at baptisms, weddings and funerals when the clergy are reduced still further in number? Where will the remaining clergy live when your parish’s Vicarage is sold off? How far will they have to travel to come to your parish?
Are the mega-parish PCC going to do all this for you? No way!
Everything you did before you go into a mega-parish will still have to be done. All that would be achieved is another layer of administration to add to the Rural Dean, the Archdeacon and the Bishop’s staff. So that is 4 layers, rather than the current 3.
And guess what – the complexity of running a mega-parish will mean that paid administrators will be needed. The draft Kerrier Deanery Plan shows a paid Administrator and a paid Finance Officer.
Who is going to pay them? Guess who. Sooner or later the people of Kerrier!
The Penwith Deanery draft is proposing to have a Discipleship Coordinator, 4 Children and Family Workers, a Kingdom Enterprise Officer, and a Pilgrimage and Hospitality Officer. Where are these people going to come from and how much will they cost? Wouldn’t they rather have one more vicar?
I ask again, how did these absurdities get through the Deanery Synod?
These people will add costs – which in due course you will have to find from your parish share. That’s what ‘sustainable’ means. Oh yes – that won’t go away! Parish share (or MMF as it is called) will go up to pay the Administrator and the Finance Officer – not down because you have no vicar. Some deanery plans envisage doubling the number of donors and doubling the amount given by each donor. This in exchange for no vicar.
How did Deanery Synods fall for this?
Across Cornwall how can there be improvements in ‘fruitfulness and sustainability’ by replacing clergy with administrators? There are already too many administrators.
These schemes can steal all your parish assets – all your reserves – all your carefully collected giving – all your legacies - and still leave you – without a vicar – and dependent on volunteers to run everything.
AND FINALLY – PLEASE HAVE THE COURAGE TO COMPLAIN IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT IS BEING DONE TO YOUR PARISH.
If these schemes are implemented on the ‘Single Parish, Single PCC’ model, you will not have your own church PCC or any of your current assets, rights and responsibilities. Recent FAQ from the diocese suggests they cannot force this on a deanery.
Well – the diocese can play semantic tricks with the word ‘forced’. If the diocese proposes a single parish deanery, and the Church Commissioners agree (in spite of any objections) – then it will be ‘forced’ upon you.
It is the equivalent of Parliament taking away your voting rights by saying only one village in 20 can vote in an election. And if you write and complain that you do not have a vote, your letter will go straight in the bin – because Parliament would have taken away your right of representation. And it is not just you who will have lost those rights, but everybody in that village - forever.
The diocese has no business to expect the people of Cornwall to surrender their parishes in this way – and their locality – hamlet, village or small town – has no need to surrender.
You would not put up with this from Parliament – and nor should the people of Cornwall put up with the loss of assets, rights and responsibilities caused by the Diocese forming a mega-parish.
In the case of the mega-parish (or any other pastoral reorganisation – as it is called) Parliament is actually on your side. They put in place the legislation over many years that
· forces Bishops to consult PCCs and other so called ‘interested parties’; there are rules for full consultations to take place which the Bishops MUST observe.
· forces Bishops to consult with the Church Commissioners (if there are objections to a scheme);
· requires the Church Commissioners to consult with anybody in the Kingdom who wants to make a representation;
· requires the Church Commissioners to hear appeals made against any scheme for change.
If things are done properly (and if they are not, that is strong grounds for complaint in itself) there are four opportunities to make your views known.
· First - At the informal stage – when the area/rural dean or the archdeacon discusses with PCCs ideas for the future. This should be a two-way exchange with open minds and not a one way briefing on what is to happen to your parish.
· Second - Formal consultation within the diocese. This is when you can write in with a representation of your views, for or against, which will be considered by the diocese (usually a suffragan bishop plus committee). You should insist on getting a response.
· Third - Consultation with the Church Commissioners when they are reviewing the scheme proposed by the bishop. This is open to every citizen, as well as PCCs and other groups (heritage, for example). Again, you should get a response – and you can go back if not satisfied with the response.
· Fourth – you and every citizen and organisation have the right to appeal against the Scheme to a hearing by the Church Commissioners;
· And fifth and finally – but not really a topic for today, you can ask to appeal to the Privy Council.
This process can take months, especially if there are a lot of objections. I don’t want to get all Churchillian, but this takes – not quite - toil, tears and sweat– but
· determination to succeed,
· courage of your convictions, and
· perseverance to see the process through to the end.
It can be done. These schemes can be stopped.
Let me finish by saying that it need not be difficult to make a representation. After all, you might have to make it 5 times. Your comments do not need to be long winded, or emotional, or technical, or legal – but firm, fair and from the heart.
There is plenty of good advice on our website – www.savetheparish.com Or you can email us on savetheparish@gmail.com
Those passionate arguments – calmly stated but strongly felt - from the heart - can work.
Whereas the mega-parish will not work.
They have not worked in Wales; it has not worked in Wigan and they will not work in Cornwall.
· Tell your Bishop
· Tell the Church Commissioners
· Tell your MP
· And tell the media
· They are not necessary financially
· There is no evidence that they work pastorally, or achieve growth in attendance or giving
· They add another layer of expensive administration.
They decimate the number of clergy available, and their houses are sold off by the diocese for its own funds
Please don’t do it to Cornwall.
Parishes haven’t asked for it – we know that very clearly from your first hand stories written to us - they’ve been pushed into it.
And many parishes don’t want it.
Thank you for listening.
The diocese has no business to expect the people of Cornwall to surrender their parishes in this way – and their locality – hamlet, village or small town – has no need to surrender.
You would not put up with this from Parliament – and nor should the people of Cornwall put up with the loss of assets, rights and responsibilities caused by the Diocese forming a mega-parish.
In the case of the mega-parish (or any other pastoral reorganisation – as it is called) Parliament is actually on your side. They put in place the legislation over many years that
· forces Bishops to consult PCCs and other so called ‘interested parties’; there are rules for full consultations to take place which the Bishops MUST observe.
· forces Bishops to consult with the Church Commissioners (if there are objections to a scheme);
· requires the Church Commissioners to consult with anybody in the Kingdom who wants to make a representation;
· requires the Church Commissioners to hear appeals made against any scheme for change.
If things are done properly (and if they are not, that is strong grounds for complaint in itself) there are four opportunities to make your views known.
· First - At the informal stage – when the area/rural dean or the archdeacon discusses with PCCs ideas for the future. This should be a two-way exchange with open minds and not a one way briefing on what is to happen to your parish.
· Second - Formal consultation within the diocese. This is when you can write in with a representation of your views, for or against, which will be considered by the diocese (usually a suffragan bishop plus committee). You should insist on getting a response.
· Third - Consultation with the Church Commissioners when they are reviewing the scheme proposed by the bishop. This is open to every citizen, as well as PCCs and other groups (heritage, for example). Again, you should get a response – and you can go back if not satisfied with the response.
· Fourth – you and every citizen and organisation have the right to appeal against the Scheme to a hearing by the Church Commissioners;
· And fifth and finally – but not really a topic for today, you can ask to appeal to the Privy Council.
This process can take months, especially if there are a lot of objections. I don’t want to get all Churchillian, but this takes – not quite - toil, tears and sweat– but
· determination to succeed,
· courage of your convictions, and
· perseverance to see the process through to the end.
It can be done. These schemes can be stopped.
Let me finish by saying that it need not be difficult to make a representation. After all, you might have to make it 5 times. Your comments do not need to be long winded, or emotional, or technical, or legal – but firm, fair and from the heart.
There is plenty of good advice on our website – www.savetheparish.com Or you can email us on savetheparish@gmail.com
Those passionate arguments – calmly stated but strongly felt - from the heart - can work.
Whereas the mega-parish will not work.
They have not worked in Wales; it has not worked in Wigan and they will not work in Cornwall.
· Tell your Bishop
· Tell the Church Commissioners
· Tell your MP
· And tell the media
· They are not necessary financially
· There is no evidence that they work pastorally, or achieve growth in attendance or giving
· They add another layer of expensive administration.
They decimate the number of clergy available, and their houses are sold off by the diocese for its own funds
Please don’t do it to Cornwall.
Parishes haven’t asked for it – we know that very clearly from your first hand stories written to us - they’ve been pushed into it.
And many parishes don’t want it.
Thank you for listening.
Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent KCB CBE
After reading mathematics at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent served in the Royal Navy for 37 years, latterly as Second Sea Lord and then Commander-in-Chief Fleet, retiring in 2007. He commanded the conventional submarine HMS OLYMPUS, the nuclear submarine HMS CONQUEROR, the frigate HMS BRILLIANT and the aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE. He saw active service in Northern Ireland, the Cold War, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan. He was awarded an operational CBE in 1999 for inspirational leadership and knighted in 2004 for taking a leading role in diversity.
As well as being a Churchwarden in one of a 7 parish benefice in Devon, a member of the Deanery Synod and a Local Worship Leader, he is now turning his energy to Save the Parish His objective in doing this is to persuade the Church of England, in its various forms, to place parishes higher in their priorities, rather than seeing them as a source of resources.
Comments