PCC Amalgamations: Why they are wrong, and how to resist them.

A talk given by Andrew Orange, General Synod Lay Member at the Save The Parish Spring Conference April 2024.

I’m grateful to Bishop Andrew for reminding us of the importance of the local. If there was ever something that’s ‘thin end of the wedge’ towards dismantling the local, it’s PCC Amalgamations. Let me be clear what I’m talking about. It’s when there is a proposal to take a cluster of PCCs, dissolve them, and in their place create a single, new united PCC encompassing all the former ones. Perhaps that sounds innocuous enough, but I will try to explain how these amalgamations can fundamentally change the legal arrangements, to the detriment of the parish. They are very hard to reverse – which is why STP opposes them strongly. 

They can be introduced sometimes at a second stage. That’s exactly what happened in a benefice local to me – they created the mega-benefice first and some years later proposed and implemented the PCC amalgamation.

Of course there are those who will make an alluring argument for a PCC Amalgamation. Dioceses and their Archdeacons will typically claim all sorts of benefits, such as: “it will reduce the governance burden and enable us to focus on pastoral work. It will release energy. Even, it will empower fund-raising activities and increase regular giving.” Well, this talk will cover why all these statements are dubious at best, and probably wrong.

I’m Andrew Orange. I am a laity representative at General Synod. I’ve had a career in Industry. The reason for me giving this talk today is that last year, I played a part in successfully opposing a Scheme for PCC Amalgamation in my own parish in Winchester Diocese.

First let me explain the dangers of PCC Amalgamations, five of them.  

• More layers and bureaucracy. St Francis wrote in his instructions to his Brothers, “All the Brothers in whatever places they may be, are not to be administrators nor chancery officials. Each should continue in that craft and work that was his when he was called”. Quite so, just spread the Word and promote the gospel.

But the 21^st century Church of England loves bureaucratic layers! We already have 5 tiers of administration, each with its own Council or Synod. And the trouble with PCC Amalgamations is that, far from simplifying things, they add yet another layer. The poor parishioner still has to attend meetings of their Church (for that still has its specific issues) but also of the Merged PCC. Equally bad, the vicar may lose agency in their parish church, reporting to a Head Rector rather than having independence of action. I don’t think this makes any sense. It’s the creation of those forms of administration that St Francis did not want.

• Less volunteering. In my case in Hampshire, we had a proposal for a single PCC covering 16 former parishes over something like 100 sq miles. That compares to a single parish which might be typically 10 sq miles. Only saints and heroes would volunteer for such a large area. Yes many of us will step forward to volunteer for our village, but few of us will have the time or inclination to be Treasurer or Secretary over an area 10 times larger. So under such arrangements we end up employing administrators, and paying for them, where previously we had the free contributions of volunteers. More costs.

• Destruction of rootedness. I want you to shut your eyes for a second, and imagine that you are a Christian space-traveller from another planet. As you skim high above the surface of the earth, you come across this wonderful country called England, and you notice there are Christian churches in every fold of the land. How rooted this country must be to the word of Christ! Then, using your spacecraft’s ultra binoculars, you notice that each church is of extraordinary beauty – often the finest building in the community it resides in.

Let’s open our eyes and return to earth with a bump – but what an extraordinary inheritance this is! The trouble is, too few in the current leadership of the Church of England  recognise this. Oh! They say. People will travel for what is important, same as they do to supermarkets. 

They see our inheritance more as a problem, than as an opportunity. But Place does matter. People will move mountains to keep their local church in good order, even those who do not go to church often, and particularly so in rural communities. A churchwarden from Cornwall wrote to me recently: “My family, and my husband’s family, have lived in the area for many generations. Our roots are deep and our beautiful Church is very precious to our family, and the wider community.” So we must resist church Measures that weaken this rootedness.

• Less donations. I expect some of you have written letters asking for money for your local parish church. If your respondents are like mine, they answered with wonderful generosity. Yet it’s clear, they respond as fellow villagers, keen to support the activity in their local village church. If the appeal is to fund a wider area, as it would have to be after a PCC Amalgamation, it becomes detached from the immediate community – and people simply don’t have the same passion for the church that is over the hill, 5 miles away. So they won’t give the same.

• Heightened threat of closure. Here’s one story. Some 5-10 years ago, 3 PCCs in Southampton came together into a single new combined one, called Maybush. Activity focused mainly on one church, and yet money was short. So temptation struck. Why not sell the less prominent church, transfer its reserves, and bank the proceeds to pay off the debt and fund new projects at the ‘main’ church? The churches had joined together, so the PCC members were from a broad area, and those who represented the threatened church were simply outvoted. The church was sold. We heard this week they’ve taken the cross off the tower of the church and cut it up to put it in a skip. The scaffolding is up to alter this much-loved community church completely.

Here’s another slightly different case. St Barnabas also in Southampton, was merged with St Mary’s. In churchmanship, the two churches were as different as chalk and cheese; the first anglo-catholic, the second low church evangelical and larger. No longer able to vote about its own future, St Barnabas had to stop having services. Its website says “we are temporarily pausing services while we get the building ready.” I don’t think the treasured anglo-catholic icons will be there any more, when the ‘building’ is “ready”. It was a case of one form of Churchmanship supplanting another where really we should have been keeping both, for the sake of diversity of worship.

Or more generally, an amalgamated church can simply wither on the vine. No longer with its own PCC, in the large amalgamated unit, the bigger churches get all the priority.

I’ve given you 5 reasons why PCC Amalgamations are dangerous: More bureaucracy, less volunteering, removal of rootedness, reduction in donations, and ultimately, risk of closure. And here’s why PCCs are important: it is the PCC which keeps the Church flame alight; it is the PCC that ensures there is enough money to pay all the bills; it is the PCC that takes responsibility for keeping its church itself safe and in a good state of repair. OK, what are we going to do about it?

Quite simply if you only remember one thing from this talk, it’s ‘don’t sign your own death warrant’. You have legal rights as a PCC, so you should be firm and not waive them. If you are unhappy, just record as a Minute that you do not want the amalgamation. If the amalgamation is part of a diocese ‘pastoral scheme’, as it often is, it is still possible that the scheme is implemented. However, most sensible dioceses don’t want to trample over parish wishes. They may try to wear you down and change your mind, but in that case, your correct response is to stay firm. In the end, and quite rightly, the Church does not like to do things against the wishes of parishioners. In the case I championed in Winchester Diocese, and took to the Church Commissioners on appeal, the expressed opposition of the PCCs was a major factor in the balance of considerations.

I give just one exception to that general advice. It is possible, where churches are within a mile or two of each other, that a PCC Amalgamation might work – or that a small daughter church (sometimes called a chapel of ease) might live comfortably under the umbrella of the main parish church. But if it’s more than a couple of miles, it is not sufficiently local. If it isn’t local, it doesn’t work. 

Now concerning how you do it. I say it is possible to do it politely. Indeed Matthew 18 sets out advice about how to proceed in a dispute. Feelings can run high, it’s true, but do stay Christian about the way you do it. That doesn’t mean you have to roll over, but equally don’t become horrid over it. If your vicar or rector wants you to go along with the PCC Amalgamation, be sensitive to the difficult position they may be in. Perhaps they are under pressure, for the Church hierarchy generally has a rabid fascination with these schemes. But being sensitive doesn’t mean you have to be over-deferential. You are challenging your priest’s opinion on administrative arrangements; you are not diminishing the high regard you hold him or her as priest. Just record that you don’t want it. Ideally do this in a PCC minute or, if that is impossible, do it in a letter signed by members. But do it!

Don’t allow the argument sometimes made, that having too many PCCs means too much governance work for priests. If that’s the case, I say that the laity should take on the governance, just as happens in interregnums. The idea that vicars must chair all PCC meetings dates from an age when there was one vicar or rector for each parish. Happily there are still a few places where this is the case and for them, fine, it’s wonderful that the priest can act as Chair. But in many, many benefices, vicars and rectors have to work with several PCCs, sometimes 10 or more of them. In those cases, the laity should champion the PCC – for it is indeed far too much work for the priests, if they have to attend all the meetings. Let them, as is allowed, excuse themselves where they wish and delegate the Chair to Churchwardens, and be briefed afterwards.

Finally, let me now give you a few bits of tactical advice about how you oppose: 

• Get your vicar onside, if you can. In our case in which we took the Winchester Diocese proposal to the Church Commissioners, our priest spoke at the appeal hearing, making clear that she supported our appeal and did not want the amalgamation to go ahead. This helped us a lot.  
• Try to express your feelings early in the process, and be robust. Then be consistent. Keep on your case. Above all be patient – the Church of England can be VERY slow. But equally don’t allow long silences. Keep asking.
• And, while you are waiting, keep worshipping! In my own particular church, we were in inter-regnum, and able to have regular services even during lockdowns, by drawing on the Register of Retired Clergy and our own lay leaders. We were very determined to keep going. And we paid our Parish Share. Our demonstrated commitment as laity was an important reason for our appeal being successful.  

Let me finish with another example – the tiny hamlet of Hunton, local to me in Hampshire. With the church under threat of closure, a small dedicated group of around 7 people determinedly raised about £70,000 pounds and kept the church open. This parish is a shining example of how money and positive thinking can take you a very long way.

I told you that I’d had a career in business. So here’s a business analogy. When things are difficult, you can call in the Receiver and wind everything up; or you can call in an Entrepreneur with imagination, and regrow. Too often our church leadership seems to be in ‘Receiver Mode’, which suggests amalgamations and slimming down. But I think we owe nothing less as Christians than to follow the example of Hunton, and stay active and imaginative, growing each Christian nucleus in the best way we can.