CHANGES to the principles governing church closures and parish reorganisation received first consideration by the General Synod on the Friday.
Introducing the talk, the Archdeacon of Ludlow, the Ven. Fiona Gibson (Hereford), introduced the Draft Mission and Pastoral Measure and accompanying regulations. She had heard various concerns, but desired to reassure the Synod that neither were they the “finished article”. The revision committee would rigorously scrutinise the text and any amendments submitted by members. The Measure was intended to create a legal framework to support churches that were offering local ministry, and to adapt this over time.
The Covid pandemic had highlighted the importance of getting flexible processes, she said. In July 2023, the Synod had approved policy proposals for a latest Measure, looking for to balance legal simplification with a good process and the proper checks and balances. The Church Commissioners had sketched out where they desired to draw this balance, but welcomed the Synod’s challenge.
The Measure addressed pastoral change, where mission and ministry would occur, buildings change (including closing a church not needed for public worship), and ministry change. It also affected parsonages and church halls, Archdeacon Gibson said. The overall objective remained the right way to provide best for the cure of souls, she said.
The Commissioners would stay as neutral arbiters of contested decisions, but that they had heard “clarion calls” a few breakdown of trust and fears over power balances, she said. The draft laws was designed to attempt to allay worries, foster trust, and streamlining the method. Where there was strong local opposition to a proposed closure, there was provision for longer and more in-depth consultation. Because prevention was higher than cure, she said, there have been also latest options to assist struggling churches to avoid closure, including letting them go “fallow” for a time before resuming worship when circumstances modified. Not everyone would agree with where the brand new balances had been drawn, but disagreements may very well be worked out within the revision committee.
The Revd Dr Mark Smith (Universities and TEIs) expressed concerns about changes to patronage, especially that of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Dioceses could arrange latest patronage boards without the necessity for existing patrons to agree, he warned. “This would create more unfairness by removing an important safeguard for parishes,” he argued, as patrons defended parishes’ traditional character.
The Revd Dr Michael Brydon (Sodor & Man) was anxious that the Measure appeared to bypass the expertise of the Church Buildings Council. “I hope that doesn’t stem from any belief that church buildings don’t contribute to mission,” he said.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds), echoed this point, arguing that more access to expertise was needed, not less.
Canon Dana Delap (Gloucester) said that an easier closure process was very welcome, but that almost all dioceses wouldn’t have the ability to fund internal reports on buildings. So she urged more involvement with the Church Buildings Council, in addition to groups comparable to the Victorian Society. “We have to determine the importance of a church and its contents, before we close it.”
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, who sits on the committee which decides probably the most contested closures and pastoral-reorganisation schemes, said that he longed for the revitalisation of parishes. The latest Measure needed to facilitate and never impede worship of God, and looked as if it would do that, he said.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) also raised concerns about changes to patronage within the draft Measure, which, he said, might unintentionally allow a bishop to maintain a parish vacant longer than anyone intended.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, assured the Synod that the Mission and Pastoral and Church Property Committee, which she sat on, took great care to hearken to local pondering on any church constructing which got here across their desks. She backed more consideration of the detail on how the committee could receive heritage advice, but urged members not to tear up the brand new system entirely and pass the draft measure into revision.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Dana Delap (Gloucester)
Tony Allwood (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), a member of the Church Buildings Council, said that the diocese of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich had greater than 470 churches, but had not closed any prior to now decade. Some parishes had minimal or non-existent congregations, and the hassle of attempting to keep these churches going, whilst festival churches, was a drain on overworked clergy, he said. The current closure process, nevertheless, was so complex that it was easier to “just soldier on”. There were many unwanted churches sitting in the midst of a field, with no electricity or heritage interest, which largely ended up mothballed and decaying, offering a poor Christian witness. He welcomed the changes, but said that reforms needed to go further to hurry up those sorts of closure.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said that the Mission and Pastoral Measure was the rationale that Save the Parish had been established, three years ago. “This is due to the love that folks have for his or her parishes and their churches, and the fear we’ve concerning the way they and their churches are treated.” He spoke of the “broken souls” of people that felt missed in parishes, but praised the committee behind the draft Measure for listening to them and improving the laws. He welcomed the fallow process, and the brand new “parity of arms” between parishes and dioceses. He hoped that the rights of patrons wouldn’t be watered down and that the expertise of the Church Buildings Council could be properly used. While the Measure may very well be improved, it was value carrying.
Prebendary Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu (London) said that Mission was not nearly expanding numbers, but ensuring that church structures “serve the gospel moderately than hinder it”. Wrong decisions on church closures or pastoral reorganisation could have a profound impact, but he welcomed the draft Measure as a “vital step in ensuring the Church of England remained missionally agile”. It was transparent and pastorally sensitive, he said. “The Church’s future will not be in preserving what was, but joining God in what he’s doing now.”
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) commended the Measure for making the method much easier and creating more agency for parishes. She did, nevertheless, share concerns concerning the sidelining of the Church Buildings Council, which she sat on.
Sarah Finch (London) was concerned about accelerating closures of churches. Earlier versions of this laws had given the Church Buildings Council a core part to play in the method, she said. In the brand new Measure, how would the voice of locals who wished to stop the closure of their village church be heard?
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, said that the changes coming within the Measure were “long overdue”. He welcomed its prevention of giving a single objector the identical weight in the method as a gaggle of PCCs who had deeply considered the scheme. He had, nevertheless, other concerns about weakening statutory consultation for church closures. Mutually useful relationships with external bodies mustn’t be avoided, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) said that her current parish had, for a very long time, had too many buildings, nevertheless it had been very tricky to dump or repair the unnecessary and crumbling structures. If communities wished to avoid wasting their buildings, they needed to search out ways to finance and maintain them, she said. She welcomed the brand new avenues that the Measure would open up for her parish.
Peter Bruinvels (Guildford) welcomed the Measure and regulations, but said that the helpful expertise of the church’s staff mustn’t be ignored. He also urged members to not underestimate the importance of archdeacons and on-site visits when considering a closure scheme. “Churches today have a friend within the Church Commissioners, who will hearken to the voice of the parish.”
Penny Allen (Lichfield) urged members to contemplate whether more joint use of buildings and shared congregations could help to revitalise ministry in places where parishes were struggling.
The draft Measure was referred to the revision committee, and debate moved on to the regulations.
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) said that one among her Grade II listed churches was “teetering getting ready to closure”. It was a much-loved a part of a deprived community, but repair bills had worn out the reserves, and the following crisis would probably force closure. This could be the third church to shut in her parish, she said, prompting parishioners to conclude that the Church was withdrawing from the world. Yet there was huge missional potential for this struggling church constructing, and so welcomed the support that the regulations offered. Could there be more resources diverted to prop up churches like this?
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission, the Ven. Sally Gaze (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), also welcomed the regulations, and asked whether there may very well be language inserted on consulting other denominations on church closures. The Measure would allow a wide selection of creative uses for church buildings, which she looked forward to.
The regulations were then referred to the revision committee.
