Further Commentary on the ‘Vision and Strategy’ from Bishop Guli’s lecture

You can read our transcription of +Guli’s lecture here

If you would like to add to these comments please email help@savetheparish.com

Comments by Rev’d Campbell Paget

It has been a long time coming – the realisation that without local parish clergy the decline in membership of the C of E will continue – when the penny really ought to have dropped much much earlier given not least the poor results from alternative strategies. It is most encouraging therefore that some bishops at least have woken up to the fact, appreciated and warned of for some time now by experienced laity, that the current ‘Vision and Strategy’ is not producing and cannot produce their stated goals.

The physical presence of the local priest as opposed to an unfamiliar voice from afar, probably on the end of a telephone, is the sine qua non for maintaining and growing the local church: there has to be leadership that is locally present not only to teach, care for, and encourage a congregation but also to mediate and adjudicate when human ‘shortcomings’ require a loving but firm intervention. Again, because of human nature and local relationships this is not something that can be done effectively or without adverse repercussions by a committee or some specialist advisor parachuted in from a far flung ‘hub’. Indeed, the arguments that the decline can be arrested by special projects, initiatives, mega parishes, hubs, helter skelters, crazygolf and the like simply do not add up; and the evidence has shown this to be true as well as culpably wasteful of financial resources.

The arguments that ‘there are not enough clergy’ or that ‘we cannot afford them’ are the default position of the C of E’s current hierarchy. But they in large part have brought this upon themselves, burying their heads in the sand and not anticipating the problem. It is also true that the ‘not enough’ and ‘cannot afford’ problems are not without remedy given the size of funds held by the Church Commissioners, funds one always understood to be held in trust for the benefit of the parishes. Whatever one thinks of the logic, the sense, and the genuine concern behind the recently proposed reparations, it beggars belief to think that none of the £10 billion could be used to employ more parish priests for a suitable period in order to resurrect priest-less parishes and kick start a renewed presence for the necessary numerical growth that must accompany it if there is to be a worshipping and witnessing Christian community in those parishes in the future.

As to the lack of ordinands presenting themselves of recent years, the anecdotal evidence strongly suggests the following obstacles, all of which again could be so easily surmounted by a more realistic and one would have to say charitable approach by the hierarchy: unrealistic stipends, unsuitable housing for families of more than 3 or 4, the near impossibility of owning one’s own home, becoming middle managers rather than parish priests, employment by the uncertainty of contract rather than having the security and freedom of ‘the living’, lack of trust in bishops given their track record of recent years with cover ups, victims, mismanaged Clergy Disciplinary Measures, freedom of speech, etc, The list goes on but represents a huge disincentive to offering oneself for ordained ministry today.

It is not too late to resurrect the parishes and parish ministry led by embedded parish priests – the argument that ‘the laity will take up the slack’ is disingenuous – but a failure to do so will certainly accelerate a decline which with a little wisdom and common sense could be so easily arrested.

Comments by Oliver Iliffe

Bishop Guli’s lecture is very interesting.  Particularly the tacit recognition that the current strategy is failing.  I have to say that I almost completely agree with her.  She clearly speaks from the perspective of being a Persian Christian, with the powerful message that it is always worth following Christ, whatever the circumstances (the true Church will not die).  Theologically, on Vision and Strategy, I think she is spot on.However, reading it has underlined, for me, one important aspect of this whole issue – which is the inability or unwillingness to advocate for the established status of the CofE.  I think one of the main arguments for the maintenance of the parish system is that it is the physical manifestation of the established church in every community.  If the parish is lost, so is de facto establishment.  It might be worth trying to link the two more firmly in episcopal minds (especially the Lords Spiritual)!  The trouble is that both concepts rely on moral arguments that no-one seems prepared to make any more – i.e. Christians have a duty to the parish and the nation, and (moreover) that it would be immoral to surrender that duty for no good reason.  The logical end result is that we drift towards a disestablished church where the bishops control the funds and call the shots.  So in one sense Bishop Guli’s criticism is helpful, but in another sense, she may feel she is preparing the ground for change of a different kind but which still involves quite radical change.  Reassuring to hear some sense spoken all the same!