36 Reasons to say NO

Three dozen reasons why large groupings of parishes, such as Minster Communities, are unnecessary and unwelcome

These come under the following four headings:

Dioceses have to operate within the law.  Changing a whole diocese to Minster Communities or other large groupings is ‘Pastoral Reorganisation’.  The procedure for this is laid down by Act of Parliament called the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.  Your diocese may not be acting within the spirit of the law, as set by Parliament.

  1. Moving parishes into Minster Communities or other groupings will eventually need pastoral reorganisation under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 (MPM 2011).  This measure is enacted to “make better provision for the cure of souls.”  The diocese must demonstrate throughout consultation that this is the case.  PCCs can and should challenge why a larger grouping of parishes will achieve this.  Where is the evidence (see below)?
  2. Section 1 of the Measure (which has the force of an Act of Parliament) requires “It shall be the duty of any person or body carrying out functions under this Measure to have due regard to the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England.”  The diocese must demonstrate they have complied with this duty throughout the process from informal consultation (possibly already in progress) to submission to the Church Commissioners.  PCCs can challenge this for their own parish.  Will the proposed scheme ‘further the mission of the CofE’ in your parish?
  3. Nowhere in the legal procedure for pastoral reorganisation does it give any particular weight to the views of your Diocesan Synod.  Deanery Plans do have some weight but are not a defining factor.  Do not be bullied by the Diocesan Synod – the governance of your parish is in the hands of your PCC.  Just because the Diocesan Synod have approved something it is not too late to object.
  4. MPM 2011 requires each diocese to establish a Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee to, amongst other things, make recommendations for pastoral reorganisation across the whole diocese, or in parts.  In so doing they must have regard to: ‘the financial implications for the diocese’, ensure that ‘appropriate conditions of service are enjoyed by those employed or holding office in the diocese’ and to ‘the traditions, needs and characteristics of particular parishes’.  The diocese must demonstrate at every stage of consultation that these points have been complied with.   For example, a single priest serving multiple parishes over a large area may not in your PCC’s opinion have ‘appropriate conditions of service’.
  5. MPM 2011 is accompanied by a Code of Recommended Practice Volume 1: Pastoral Reorganisation.  The diocese should bring this document and an understanding of its contents to every affected parish before embarking on informal consultation (which is covered in the code) – not least because ‘It provides guidance on process and seeks to identify those areas where problems are most likely to occur in practice.’   The code strongly recommends that ‘officials concerned inform the interested parties of their statutory rights at the outset of informal discussions’.  The code requires the Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee to ‘help the clergy and laity understand why and how pastoral proposals come to be initiated and the ways in which individual interests are safeguarded.’  If your diocese has not made this available to your PCC, with explanation, then the PCC should ask for any consultation to stop until they have been thoroughly advised about their rights and responsibilities.
  6. The ‘due regard’ formula (see 2. above) allows and requires a person or body exercising a particular function under the Measure (which includes PCCs) to take account of all the relevant factors, giving each their proper weight in that particular context.  PCCs must point out where insufficient weight is being given to ‘relevant factors’.  A relevant factor might for example be that your parish church is currently flourishing and sustainable – which the proposed reorganisation would put in jeopardy.
  7. The Code of Recommended Practice requires that ‘Diocesan officials should make it clear to the interested parties when discussions are informal and when the formal stage begins.’   The PCC must challenge if this is not happening.  Do so in writing and keep records.
  8. The Code identifies Key Principles to bear in mind on consultations.  ‘For consultations to be fair: (i) they must take place at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; (ii) the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposals to permit intelligent consideration and response; (iii) adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and (iv) the product of the consultations must conscientiously be taken into account when finalising any decision.’  Challenge if you believe any of these are not happening.
  9. The Code also emphasises ‘Avoiding Pre-judgement – While the DMPC or its representatives may feel it necessary to emphasise any constraining factors, e.g. the availability of clergy or funds, or matters of diocesan policy, that may impose limitations on the recommendations the committee, they should on no account make it appear that the committee has already decided on its recommendations regardless of any suggestions made by those who are being consulted.’  And ‘The Committee or an archdeacon may have a pre-disposition towards a particular recommendation but should always be open to reconsidering this in the light of the views expressed.’  Be prepared to press this point.

Summary:  The Pastoral Reorganisation Code of Practice is a gold mine of the rights of PCCs.  Read it and use it!  And do not give up your PCC, otherwise you will not have any of these rights.

There is no evidence to support the growth assertions of the Minster Community or any other large grouping of parishes.  In fact the opposite.  All parties involved in pastoral reorganisation should take into account all available evidence.

  1. The Church’s own study, From Anecdote to Evidence, concluded, ‘Where there is an increase in paid clergy, there is a greater likelihood of growth. A decrease in paid clergy is more likely, on average, to lead to decline.’  So why is the Diocese driving decline in your parish?
  2. A follow up study, Going Deeper, concluded, ‘Regardless of congregation size, amalgamations of churches are more likely to decline.  Moreover, the larger the number of churches in the amalgamation, the more likely they are to decline.”  So, the Church’s own analysis shows that merging churches causes decline.   So why are dioceses doing this?  How is the reorganisation of your parish ‘making better provision for the cure of souls’?  Better than what your parish has now?
  3. And Liverpool Diocese has actually done an experiment on the ground in Wigan, where 33 parishes have been merged into groups of seven in so-called “hubs”, new word for a parish.  As a result of that, congregations have dropped by third, donations have dropped by third, and an independent review of this project said ‘The research can only conclude the project was unable to stop the downward trajectory of the finances.’  So, the Church of England now has evidence from its own studies, and evidence on the ground, that merging parishes drives decline.  So why are some dioceses driving decline?
  4. An independent report by Sir Robert Chote (former Head of the Office for Budget Responsibility) identified that non-parish growth projects awarded £176 million funding between 2014 and 2021 were expected to create 89,375 ‘new disciples’.  By February 2022, only12,705 had been ‘witnessed’.   Of those about half came from adjacent parishes and were not new worshippers.
  5. Evidence from ‘hubs’ in Wigan, ‘Ministry Areas’ in Wales and other parish mergers (although to be fair some are successful) leads to more layers and bureaucracy.  The poor parishioner still has to attend meetings of their Church (for that has its own local issues) but also of the merged PCC.  Who will collect the collection and where will it go?  Who will organise all the volunteering that is necessary to keep the church open, safe, welcoming and warm?  Merged parishes need more volunteers, not fewer.
  6. Mergers lead to (even) less volunteering.  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 large PCC amalgamations end up employing administrators, and paying for them, in place of volunteers.  More costs; fewer clergy.  This will be a consequence of merging parishes.
  7. Heightened threat of closure.  If churches have joined together into a single PCC, its members will be from a broad area.  Those who represent a threatened church can be a minority and therefore outvoted, and their church closed.  This is happening all over Wales (who are about 10 years ahead of England on this doom loop), and has recently happened in Southampton.  19 churches out of the 33 in Wigan are being considered for closure.  None of them now have their own PCC to defend themselves in law.

Summary:  The Church’s own studies and their experiments on the ground all conclude that merging parishes and reducing clergy numbers drives decline.  It is the wrong response and it is time to stop planning for this disastrous trajectory.

How does the financial management of your diocese compare with others?  Comparative analysis has been done initially by STP and followed up by the national Church in the Diocesan Finances Review 2024 – achieving very similar results.  Figures from diocesan accounts are available from every diocese here.

  1. Look up what percentage of your diocese’s expenditure is on support, training and admin.  See if the percentage is growing.  Also look up the percentage of diocesan expenditure that is on clergy stipends, including pensions – and whether that is declining.  Are further clergy cuts planned?  What has been the reduction of clergy vsoffice staff over the last 5 years?  The rate of decline of clergy if support costs are growing, needs vigorous challenge by PCCs.
  2. Look up the gap between total parish share and expenditure on clergy and stipends.  It is possibly quite small.  This gap will be eased by the receipt of Low Income Communities Funding.  Glebe rent (historic parish money) will produce further income for clergy stipends.  So what maybe shown as a gap in funding is quite possibly sufficient to pay for current levels of clergy.  What is probably not affordable is the current level of diocesan staff.
  3. The formation of Minster Communities, or other similar schemes, is probably being helped by a grant from the national Church.  Why is the diocese not asking for money for more clergy – rather than for help with funding to cut clergy?  A Diocesan Investment Programme bid to the national Church to grow clergy should be being prepared for submission.  Your Diocese should be bidding for financial support for more clergy across the diocese – to ‘make better provision for the cure of souls’ through ‘a Christian presence in every community.’  The Church’s grant giving body the SMMIB has made it clear that grants are available to support the development and revitalisation of existing Church ministry as well as for new approaches to mission.
  4. Look up in your diocesan accounts or the STP website how many stipendiary clergy your diocese has and how many full time equivalent diocesan staff.  Work out the ratio.  The average across all dioceses is 1:3 – that is one bureaucrat for every three stipendiary priests.  If your diocese was a ‘tin rattling’ charity delivering ‘social services’, very few would donate (= parish share) if 1/3 of the employees were in head office.  This ratio in your diocese needs vigorous challenge. 
  5. Look up nearby dioceses of a similar scale and see what they spend on ‘ministry support’ compared to your diocese.  Why isn’t your diocese learning from others – or better still, sharing ‘back office’ functions? 
  6. Look up how much your diocese has in freehold land and buildings, and in other ‘investments’.  What steps are being taken to get a higher return on these investments?  The Diocesan Finances Review 2024 revealed that only 3 dioceses have been moving low yield glebe assets into higher yielding assets – is your diocese now embarking on this?  Diocesan Synod members need to check.
  7. Has your diocese recently received any grants from the Archbishops’ Council?  Has any of this gone on parish ministry?  It is difficult to tell!  Most dioceses do not itemise the associated expenditure in their annual accounts.  It is normal accounting practice to show in ‘expenditure’ where the money has gone from a grant – try asking the Auditors why they are not demanding this.  And ask your diocese how much grant money they are spending on genuine parish ministry (as you understand the term).
  8. Many of the ‘investments’ held by your diocese will be in the Diocesan Stipends Fund (DSF)  – which is a restricted fund for clergy and defined associated costs as per the Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure 1953 Section 4.   For many dioceses this amounts to tens of millions.  Look up the size of the size of your Diocesan Stipends Fund and see what return the diocese your diocese is getting.  Challenge whether they could do better by moving some of the assets in this fund to give higher rates of interest.  A few dioceses have been doing this for several years.  
  9. In your DSF there may be some ‘Unapplied Total Return’.  This is capital gain over and above the rate of inflation and is legally available to fund clergy.  Judicious use of this sum could significantly increase the funding for stipends.  Ask your diocese what is their position on this?  Why are they cutting clergy if there is money available from the Diocesan Stipends Fund?
  10. Check whether your diocese has any loss-making ventures – such as a conference centre, or accommodation for visitors, or a bookshop.  There is no rational justification for continuing with operational losses at the same time as cutting clergy.

Summary:  Challenge how the financial management of your diocese compares with other dioceses across the country.  Is the funding organised to generate the maximum amount to pay clergy stipends?  Are the overheads in your diocese as slim as they could be?

The Minster Community or mega-parish idea runs counter to the teachings and learnings of the church for 2000 years, particularly the emphasis on ‘place’ and ‘local’ in the Anglican Church.

  1. Where better to start than the New Testament?  Mark 6: 34 ‘As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things’.  Parishioners are like sheep – and they need a shepherd.
  2. From the Ordination and Consecration of Bishops – the Archbishop says “Bishops are called to serve and care for the flock of Christ.”   The Archbishop goes on to say “Through him, with his fellow servants in Christ, increase your Church and renew its ministry, uniting its members in a holy fellowship of truth and love.  Give him humility, that he may use his authority to heal, not to hurt; to build up, not to destroy”.  PCCs should ask your Bishop whether the formation of large parish groupings across the diocese, destroying local successes, is consistent with the vows of his consecration.
  3. The Church of England’s own mantra is ‘A Christian Presence in every community’.  How will that work right across a huge group of parishes?  Is that being achieved today in benefices of over a dozen parishes in your diocese?  An Oversight Minister has made it clear in an interview how hard it is not to be part of a parish: he said that he always felt an outsider.  What is your Bishop’s definition of ‘a Christian presence in every community’?  Is that a volunteer who unlocks and locks the church every day – or is that an incumbent parish priest?
  4. The Church of England’s Vision and Strategy calls for ‘a parish system revitalised for mission so churches can reach and serve everyone in their community.’  How will that work in a community of over a dozen geographically dispersed parishes?  How will a ‘hub’ church ‘serve everyone in their community’ – widely dispersed over rural areas?  Volunteer numbers are declining – so you cannot bank on them taking the strain.
  5. Does your diocesan strategy seek large numbers of new authorised ministers (lay and ordained) – including focal ministers, leaders in new worshipping communities and volunteers.  Many do.  Why then cut clergy now?  PCCs should challenge such contradictory language and strategy.  Who will do the sacraments of baptisms, weddings and funerals at the parish church where people live?  Some deaneries are already centralising funeral arrangements.  Who will do pastoral care, already fast disappearing in many parishes?
  6. Lay ministers cannot offer Holy Communion.  Church rules require one Communion service per benefice every Sunday.  It is highly likely that outlying churches in large groupings will see a significant reduction in the local availability of Communion.  Communion by Extension (which has formed part of the so called ‘solution’ in Truro Diocese where they are reducing to ‘Oversight Ministers’) is designed to be given by a lay minister – but only ‘occasionally not regularly’.  It should not form a regular part of church life.
  7. The wider strategy of the Church of England is that ‘New Worshipping Communities’ will be within the physical boundaries of parishes but not integrated with them.  How can this possibly be revitalisation of parishes?  Challenge why such initiatives (and associated funding) is not being done through the extant parish system.
  8. It is likely that your current vicar – even if they are shared amongst several parishes – has some responsibility as a trustee of, for example, a church school, or some church buildings for public use, or local charities.  Ask who will take on this important task if your benefice is expanded to double the number of parishes?  This is a particularly important role in church schools.
  9. At the STP Spring Conference Bishop Andrew Rumsey from Salisbury Diocese said “As Anglicans, we have a highly developed sensitivity for place.  Ecclesiastical geography is important: What kind of place is the English Parish?  The parish is a covenant with place binding secular to sacred, human life to landscape, reflecting the need for a footing in the world and the desire to belong.  The parish system as inherited and curated by the Church of England is not arbitrary, but has theological richness.  It has resilience and durability over centuries.”
  10. And Professor Alison Milbank said “Our country desperately needs the return of all that we mean by parish.  So many people are isolated and alone, or struggle with mental illness.  Parishes offer healing and reconnection.  Parishes offer forgiveness, which is also part of the sacraments of the Anglican Church; they offer hope.  All the intellectual tendencies in recent thought are towards reconnection with the local, and established parishes are poised to respond to this new hunger. There is a gospel to proclaim, and the parish is the way to proclaim it authentically, at the personal, local and relational level, where we live.”

Summary:  From the teaching in the Bible, through the bishop’s ordination sacrament, to today’s huge demands for social and mental care, the parish is an immensely resilient solution.  A loving relationship with a local vicar is an essential part of this.  Stick with the parish as we know it – and don’t give up your PCC!