Church In Wales Review Report

Today, the 20th of July, 2012, a group of three experts have delivered a report to the Church In Wales that is full of over 50 recommendations on how the Church In Wales can modernise itself in order to survive for the future.

The Report can be found here

As a Priest, newly ordained in the Church In Wales, this document is of special interest to me. I have therefore taken precious time out of my day in order to spend some time reading it, because it is important.

In order to do this, I will simply respond to sections where I feel comment is particularly necessary.

4. Releasing Creative Energy

The report notes that some parishes complain that there is a culture of “Father knows best” which hampers the creative energy of the congregation. I feel that there is also the reverse: an attitude from the congregations where they expect a Priest to be in the mold of “Father knows best”, and often refuse to do anything on their own recognisance unless actively led by a Priest. I hope, of course, that I am not in the mold of “Father knows best”. While there are times when a Priest must, by necessity of experience and training stop that which is not of value to the Parish(es) in order to encourage that which is, I don’t think that is what the report is referring too, though to do that too often can appear to be an attitude of “Father knows best”, especially when some members of the congregation and Priest disagree about what is valuable.

While the report speaks of looking to release the creative energy of the lay people who will play a key role in future ministry, it does not in this section, speak of how discernment should happen at a local level for these people. It also does not speak to how you ensure that people, once discerned to be valuable, do not over-stay their time, a problem that all Priests throughout all time have encountered. Priests need training in how to, with love, enable people to see that their time in ministry has come to an end, and to allow and enable others to take up those posts.

Recommendation III and IV : Ministry Areas.

It seems the report speaks of a Ministry area. It has picked a ball-park of 25 “congregations” (which may or may not be parishes) as the number of gathered that it may cover.

It sees a model of ministry where the congregations would be supported by the NSM, or the reader, who would be part of the Ministry Team, and the Ministry Team would be made up of 3 Stipendry Clergy, who would have skills in divergent areas, one perhaps in ministry to those beyond the Church, One in Parish Ministry, and so on.

There are two things that I want to say about this. The first is that the Ministry Team is a Good Idea. Administration of 25 congregations, with suitable devolved powers, with the ability to hire a lay evangelist, a children’s officer, a secretary and so on would make the work a thousand times better.

I would want to throw out the notion of Clergy owning their own homes, because you couldn’t rent a suitable house. I know Curates who are trying, and finding one that has a suitable study with separation from the main house is impossible. I feel this particular recommendation should be ignored, and the Church should continue it’s current plan of selling and modernsing it’s Manses.

There is, however, a problem with the model as described. It takes the Clergy far to far away from the people. We are called (most of us) to Minister to the people. The way it is described leaves the people without any real knowledge of who is “their” Priest. For some, this won’t be a problem, and being able to call the Area Ministry Office and simply talk to any Priest will be fine, but there needs to be the idea of Place wrapped into this document. That the Clergy Member will have Particular oversight  over a number of Congregations in an Area. That doesn’t mean that others can’t step in to cover during holidays, or take funerals that come from outside of the area, but people should know who is their Parish Priest. The familiar face that shows up Sunday by Sunday, (or whatever day that particular Parish holds services).

That Minister should also be given some autonomy in those areas. To constantly have to refer everything that those congregations do back through the ministry team, is going to slow down decision making, and is going to slow down the speed at which things can be done. There is also a danger in letting local ministers have full control over a local congregation that they can spend too much time naval-gazing, so it is necessary that the Minister have some form of oversight.

I can totally see the need for removing of the local PCC. I can see the need for the forming of DCC/LCC (Local/District Church Councils), which make decisions for that indidual congregation, and then feed that information back to a bigger Council which acts as the area PCC, but why this is not unilaterally done for large groupings has often been a source of confusion for me. The individual autonomy of a Parish need not be compromised, and the sharing of funds ensures that more can be done for those churches that needed it.

There is, however, a sting in the tail of the idea of Ministry Areas. The mention of “Minster Models”, which moves towards having a “Centre of Excellence”.  This notion is expanded in the review’s understanding of Cathedrals. It would be all to easy for the Ministry Team to centre it’s operations at one or two large Churches, and to ensure high-class ministry from those Churches, and to neglect the outlying churches. While this will ensure growing ministry in those churches, it will mean dwindling ministry in others. Cathedrals grow because they have the facilities, and offer things that other Churches routinely cannot offer, however will this continue with several “Centres of Excellence” appearing at the heart of the Ministry Team’s areas?

Support and Appraisal of Clergy (Section 9)

While I welcome recommendations for Support and Appraisal of Clergy, what is missing (and perhaps is an oversight in such a large document), is no mention that the Archdeacons will require support and training in how to do this. It is also necessary to ensure that there are correct procedures for complaint against a “bad” appraisal in the case of a “personality conflict”. While we as a Church should always strive to live in Love, we are but human, and should look to structures that ensure that complain procedures are well documented, laid out, and available that ensure that complaints can be dealt with swiftly and with the minimum of fuss to ensure the smooth running of this new structure.

Sections 10 and 11, Young People and Outreach

I know this is a personal drum, but really, Young People are being done to death. What about re-discipling all those people we’ve lost? There are several nominal Christians between 30 and 50 who still hold the moniker Christian, but have fallen out with the institution because it’s moral stance seems at odds with their own. The institution seems to not offer them anything that seems of value to them. In order to be able to reach young people we need to lower the average age of our congregation in order to have the energy and life that will attract them. Please, let us actually seek the lost sheep, rather than trying to constantly reach out to new sheep who we then loose because we have no where to put them!

Recommendation XVII

I have to say, that the training in St. Micheals was exemplory, and the explaining about what was about to happen to me was fine in St. Asaph (but I know that is not the case for all diocese). It amuses me that the whining that has come from the students there who happen to think that they deserve so much more than they are currently getting have virtually consigned themselves to more theological education, and this report upholds the decision of the Bench of Bishops that St. Michaels College IS the right place for Training. While, of course, I would have loved to have the opportunity to do an MA in Theology (I’m busy trying to find a way to do it myself), I don’t think more Theological Education was what the complainants were after.

While the training in Ireland is outstanding, I’m not sure that the Church can afford it, nor can it afford to spend that much time training Ordinands. We don’t need Ordinands that are that theologically trained. What should instead be on offer is better availability of post-ordination training.

Three Administrative Centers/Three Dioceses

Again, it’s the loss of place. While I can see that the three administrative centres may well save money, I think I would want to see the figures. That is, I would want to see precisely how much money would be saved per anum for the Church In Wales, and per diocese in order to work out if this was a good idea before giving up the autonomy of the committee. What has always been found with centralisation of this kind, especially with decision-making comities, is the solutions that work in Cardiff do not necessarily work in Bangor, and vice versa. There would be a frustration of work, and a slowness in response, and this might be tolerable for the right cost saving, but it would have to be significant.

Archbishop of Llandaff

It seems that the report has finally settled the matter of where the Archbishopric should be. Previously, the Archbishopric has wandered around Wales, but no longer. It is quite right, actually, and for very sensible reasons, it will allow a building up of the office, and of establishing it with the standing much the same way as Canterbury, especially with the establishment of the location of centre of government.

Church Buildings

The Church Buildings shows the ideas that I outlined previous about the “Minster Model” being the one that was seemingly preferred. This section outlines a way forward for reviewing all Church buildings in a Ministry area. It first looks at how many buildings are needed from a pastoral point of view, and then make recommendations about which should be maintained in an area, and so on. It looks at how a building can be used in other ways.

This section does mention that a building that is well maintained, and prayed in in a very rural area is in itself a witness, however, the overall focus does appear to be looking at reducing the number of buildings we have.

This is a sensible, and necessary step. If we cannot find other ways of using our buildings, then they must be, sadly, closed. The report outlines a way of doing this, with a need for a review team, and Diocesan, as well as Provincial help.

Finance

The report suggests that Ministry Areas become self sufficient. Currently the Province is helping with money, but this is being phased out (And indeed, will be gone totally by 2020), so this is not a real problem in St. Asaph. What the Finance Team suggests, however, is that each Ministry Area raises the cost to finance it’s own Ministry.

I Strongly disagree with this. Not least because I’m a staunch socialist, but also because it’s unbiblical. The current system of the money going to the central pot, and then coming out again ensure that the money is distributed equally, and equitably between areas which are struggling, and areas which are more affluent. While over the entire Diocese, we should be aiming for being self-sufficient, to not even consider being able to help each other during the lean times is frankly unchristian. A Ministry Area, as it’s a geographical area, could quite easily suffer the closing of several factories, and see it’s giving plumet as half it’s congregation goes out of work. It would therefore be unfair to not subsidise this area from more wealthy areas during what will be an extended period of recession for that small area.

Further, pooling the money in a central pot will ensure greater interest, greater access to money, greater availability of grants and so fourth. All other recommendations are fine, but will be available in a much greater form. Those parishes that are able to fund themselves will not need to avail themselves of the central fund, but those who are only 12 old ladies working their grey hair off will be able to apply for a grant to have their church transformed for the ministry of welcome.

Further, the benefits of Ministry Areas vanish if rural areas must support the ministers that they can pay for. It may also be necessary, at times, to send an extra minister to an area in order to build up congregations, or to do some teaching on money. If that Area must now pay for this Minister, then such extra ministry will be impossible. If, however the current centrally administered system continues, then that minister can be sent where he/she is needed, and the area need not worry about financing him while they deal with the difficult time, and the ministry of Christ can be fully faced.

In fact, the fact that this report further focuses on the cap of growing churches, and sees the paying of the increased share as a hindrance to growth adds to my suspicion that this seems to favour the minster model. While there should be some check to ensure that the parish share does not capitalise too much on the success of a Church, and leave them with enough money to succeed, each congregation should be aware that we are part of the body of Christ.

Fees

It seems that this, again, they want to change. While we in the CiW refused, it seems that they again want to take our fees away, and put them in the parish pot. I’m still against it. I’m against it because a good priest will do the occasional offices with joy, and because it will be at least motivation for a bad Priest to ensure they are done. If the system is open to abuse, find a way to catch the abusers.

Personal Conclusion

So, in conclusion, a radical report. There are some good points, and some bad points. I can see why they went as radical as they did, but of course, there are recommendations that I disagree with, but that was to be expected.

The interesting thing, of course, is that could be the shape of the Church in which I will be ministering. I think my major concern is that it’s too far from the people. The connection to the people that we’re actually sent to minister too seems to have been forgotten in the re-ordering.

There is one thing that I think was forgotten in their vision of the Ministry Area which I think needs to be placed high on any discussion : Administration. It would be impossible to administer such an area without some form of central office. Anyone that’s worked in a team knows that in order for that team to be effective, somewhere for that team to meet, ideally regularly, is essential. The more effective, and more visible that meeting place, the more useful it’s going to be.

It seems to me that the most obvious place would be at a set of offices in, or near the Biggest Church in the Biggest town of the Ministry Area, or at least, the one nearest the centre of the Ministry area. One where everyone would have a desk, and one where everyone could “come to work”. While people could work from home as they pleased, there would be an office for people to drop in and see them if they wished, sofa for meetings and Bible Groups, perhaps a small chapel downstairs for mid-day prayer, or Morning Prayer, or you could go over to the Church….

Perhaps now you can see why the Minster Model runs high in my mind.

~BX