Another Mega-benefice in Cornwall

The Rev’d Marcus Walker, chair of Save The Parish commenting on the recent decision to form a single benefice out of the Kerrier Deanery across the Lizard Peninsula said

“The parishioners of Kerrier and surrounding areas have put up a great fight against the destruction of local parish ministry. They achieved the significant increase from 2 clergy to 3 through vigorous campaigning. But this is not enough to provide local ministry for such a wide area with so many churches. The risks remain of clergy numbers falling again and churches closing. I strongly encourage people who want and need local priestly parish ministry in Cornwall to keep fighting for it.”

Save The Parish finds deeply disappointing the decision by the national church to approve the Bishop of Truro’s plans to force the 22 places of worship of the Lizard Peninsula into one “mega-benefice”.   The decision was finally announced, following an oral hearing held on 13th May 26 by the Church Commissioners in Falmouth.  The outcome unusually flouted the wishes of some of the PCCs involved and overruled the proper theological and other advice of Patrons of some of the churches.

It was good of the Church Commissioners to come to Cornwall to hold a physical hearing.  The hearing did at least force the Bishop to make one concession: adding an extra priest to cover the 16 parishes.  Three priests, not two, is a step towards common sense – even though one of the priests has said that “that Sunday services are not the main priority for her role” and the third priest is said to be interim only for three years. 

Yet the Commissioners’ astonishing decision to approve this scheme was made in the face of 171 written objections, mainly from the people of Kerrier Deanery, the affected area.  Objectors expressed deep concerns at the proposed reduction of regular services, especially priest-led Holy Communion, and of dwindling local pastoral care.

This case has sharply highlighted many deficiencies of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011, which is currently under review.  Those who were selected and available to speak at the hearing “against” had – unlike those speaking “for” the scheme on behalf of the diocese – no access to legal advice, although they were unfamiliar with the hearing procedure and the workings of ecclesiastical law.  They had little advance opportunity to collaborate since they were communicated with individually.  Representors “against” on the day had no right of reply to the diocese, whose representatives were allowed to speak last.  All this seemed to contravene legal  principles of fairness and natural justice.

The grounds on which objections were reasonably raised were wide-ranging and included:

• Lack of evidence to support that the new scheme could better the “cure of souls” in this area, which the law required to be the case in order for the scheme be approved.
• Suggestions that the real motive was for the DBF to acquire 5 vicarages (and benefit from pocketing the proceeds of sale) as a result of reducing the number of vicars.
• Failure by diocesan staff to adhere to the statutory legal procedures.
• That the consultation process already assumed the scheme would be implemented, so was not genuine.
• Dislike of the centralised nature of “team ministry” based in one area, instead of six vicars dwelling in distinct places locally among their own flock.
• Differences of style and nature of services that would be available in the future. 
• Inadequate numbers of clergy for a total of 22 churches and chapels, particularly in Helston.

Local parishioners’ objections were strongly emphasised and explained at the oral hearing, yet ‘head office’ still decided to rubberstamp the Bishop’s deeply unpopular plans.  For those who objected, especially local voices and PCCs, it was a harsh disappointment to have arguments dismissed by the Church ‘Establishment’ repeatedly with the phrase ‘we are not persuaded’ without due explanation.  This is recognisable as a standard technique used by Whitehall civil servants when they have no credible counter-argument to a proposal!

Erroneously the Church Commissioners did not compare the draft scheme with the current legal arrangement that is in place, but with the temporary provision of 2 clergy.  The pastoral scheme formally in place until now has been 6 benefices, providing 6 parish clergy (although 4 of the clergy left after the 2 new ones were appointed, as the timeline in the written evidence showed).  The Commissioners were therefore mistaken to rule that they were satisfied that ‘based on the evidence given in the hearing that there was no intention to significantly change or reduce the pattern of services’.  They measured the diocesan proposal against the wrong yardstick. 

Although the diocese and the 2 temporary clergy made the case in the pre-hearing documentation for so-called “oversight ministry” in Kerrier, and objectors wrote and spoke strongly against it, there is no reference to it in the judgment by the Church Commissioners.  This is presumably because, in the world of the bureaucracy and legal documents of the Church of England, this type of ministry (where the vicar is an area manager and lay people supposedly do most of the parish work including taking services as “focal ministers”) does not exist.  Oversight Ministry has no foundation in parliamentary law, nor in canon law, nor in theology, nor the historical custom and practice of the Church of England; and yet the Bishop of Truro and others are trying to roll it out across their dioceses without the support of many lay parishioners who feel abandoned by it. 

Without access to ecclesiastical law advice, it is unclear to those in receipt of this decision whether the process is subject to judicial review. The notionally-offered recourse of appealing to the Privy Council, as the people of Kerrier Deanery are entitled by the legislation to do, could be very expensive.  This one-sidedness makes the people’s legal rights of appeal cosmetic and should be changed.  

This is a fight worth fighting and carrying on fighting. Save The Parish will continue to press for resourced, local priest-led approaches to ministry and growth.  STP will continue to advocate for changes in the one-sided legislation which governs these schemes.  It will continue to oppose the “mega-parish”, “team ministry” and “oversight ministry” approaches. These styles of parish ministry defy all the Church’s own empirical evidence as a route to growth; indeed, are proven to lead to decline.