THE General Synod called on the Business Committee to schedule a debate to enable it to “express its view on the approach to disbursing funding, including support for local stipendiary ministry”.
The vote meant that an amendment that called for one per cent of the Church Commissioners’ endowment to be allocated to diocesan stipend funds (DSFs) in perpetuity was not debated.
Moving the motion on the Saturday morning, the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Richard Jackson, called on the Church Commissioners to allocate a sum based on the quantity that diocesan boards of finance (DBFs) could have gained had they invested the sums that that they had contributed to clergy pensions since 1998: an estimated £2.6 billion. A debate on this had been adjourned in February.
Bishop Jackson said that he had been “overwhelmed by the groundswell of support”: the motion had already been carried in a single third of dioceses. While he still believed that the quantity set out in the unique motion represented a “just” redistribution of funds, it had “develop into clear that such a capital redistribution is unrealistic”.
He spoke of the “parlous state of diocesan funds”, which had had a cumulative deficit this yr, standing at about £60 million. “The effect of this over several years is a cut within the variety of stipendiary posts, the amalgamation of parishes, increased clergy stress, reduced morale, and a collapse in vocations: undoable jobs with a commensurate increase within the length of vacancies.”
His diocese had benefices within the fourth round of promoting which had had no applications. This had a depressing effect on congregations, which, research showed, wouldn’t recuperate throughout the average length of an incumbency (seven years). “This is an existential threat to the Church of England,” the Bishop said.
“Many dioceses like ours have made exhaustive efforts to lift our level of giving . . . but sadly now we have been unsuccessful. While now we have increased individual giving, it’s more cash from fewer people. Our demographic time bomb means we lose 3.5 per cent of congregations annually resulting from promotion to glory.”
A standard narrative was a reluctance to offer resulting from the big assets held by the Commissioners, he said.
Bishop Jackson welcomed a friendly amendment from the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley. The query was how the income generated by the Commissioners was dispersed, and whether it was local decision-makers at parish and diocesan level — “normally as the results of an exhaustive and exhausting process” — or experts within the NCIs, who knew how you can get the utmost value from it.
A small grant of £450,000 for Hereford, for instance, had required greater than 500 working hours, he said. There was an “unpleasant subtext that claims that local diocesan leadership teams are incompetent to make these decisions and money for traditional parish ministry is subsidising decline. . .
“I shouldn’t have confidence that central control distributing money through SMMIB [Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board funding] is the easiest way.”
The evidence from other agencies all over the world was that “externally driven projects designed by well-meaning people based distant by don’t prosper”. He urged members to support his motion as amended by Dr Beasley.
“We are at a kairos moment. Do we still place confidence in the parish system or are we going to let it wither on the vine, to get replaced with regional centres and a lot of forlorn empty buildings? That is where the present trajectory will take us.”
The Revd Andrew Hargreaves (Portsmouth), the interim Director of Ministry and Discipleship, was a former Team Vicar in a bunch of churches revitalised by church-plant by Holy Trinity, Brompton, he said. Over the past eight years, it had been an “absolute joy to see the profound difference that SDF and SMMIB step-change projects have made to the ministry, numerical growth, and culture of Portsmouth diocese”. The eight parishes, whose congregations ranged from 54 to 1600 in a few of the most deprived areas within the country, produced disciples “proportionally beyond some other church” and featured within the “top ten” for youngsters and young adults.
“Intentional, strategic investment brings change,” he said. While he supported the decision for funding for priests, he said that the Church was struggling to supply enough vocations. A complete of 660 priests had retired last yr, replaced by 370 deacons. Four out of 5 stipendiary deacons ordained in June had come from SMMIB-funded parishes, while three such parishes were producing about half the vocations to ordained ministry. This had made ordinands “younger and more diverse. The tattoo count is up. . . Let’s not cut this pipeline off.”
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, spoke in support of the decision for a redistribution of funds
The Archdeacon of West Cumberland, the Ven. Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle), said that, in 2015, he had been a “keen supporter” of Renewal and Reform, but that, over the past ten years, the Church had “underfunded our bedrock of parish ministry to a dangerous point”. Clergy jobs in rural areas were “unmanageable”, and “cutting parishes just isn’t a technique for mission. . .
“What makes us distinctive because the Church of England is we maintain a Christian presence in every community and that is rarely going to pay for itself, but it surely is a correct charitable priority for Church Commissioners’ redistribution.”
It was “also a smart strategic decision because much of our progressive mission depends on our parochial presence”.
In his archdeaconry, a rural church-plant had grown rapidly due to its “symbiotic” relationship with parish churches. “It’s win-win, but it surely requires that deep-seated presence in every community to be properly funded. . . Why would now we have a technique based on allowing that to die?” Funding decisions had an impact on clergy numbers, he said. “The narrative, unintended but very loud, across the creation of the SDF was that the parish system was dead and we needed to stop funding failure.” As a result, he had young clergy who said that their calling was to latest ministries, “but not the cure of souls”.
The First Church Estates Commissioner, Alan Smith, said that the Commissioners understood the “real motivations and concerns” underlying the motion and amendment, but warned that the motion would “not achieve what’s being sought” and had “the potential to do the other”. A statutory requirement to pay out one per cent of the fund’s value in perpetuity would “crowd out” almost every other area of discretionary spending. It would require the ring-fencing of £3.5 billion, result in “sub-optimal asset allocation”, necessitating the moving of funds to lower-yield assets with greater liquidity, with lower returns, and reduce the power to administer the fund professionally, potentially putting the credit standing in danger, he said. The £2.6-billion figure was “not based on robust assumptions”.
The Revd Vincent Whitworth (Manchester) said that clergy were “at breaking point. . . The role of parish priest is becoming an unattainable job. We are in crisis.” He didn’t, nonetheless, imagine that the motion was the best way forward. Even if funding were made available for more clergy posts, there wouldn’t be enough vocations in place to fill them. SMMIB funding would help to extend disciples and thus vocations. In his own parishes, youth ministry had “grown and thrived” through a SMMIB-funded project.
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans) said that more clergy were needed to serve deaf communities. She knew of 1 deaf chaplain who was struggling to cover one large rural area.
Moving his amendment to call for a “greater level of stakeholder engagement” in national spending plans, the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, said that no bishop would disagree that there was a “financial crisis across the Church of England”; but they disagreed on how you can address this.
It had “grieved” him to have to cut back, for budgetary reasons, stipendiary clergy numbers in his diocese, and he was “eager for the day” when this might be reversed. “I do regard prayerful, creative, missionary stipendiary clergy as the best asset in revitalising our dioceses.”
He recognised the “precarious” financial position of many DBFs, and shared the “widespread anxiety concerning the extent to which decisions concerning the disbursement of funding are centralised and subject to bidding, and the way hard it has been to secure funding simply to secure ordained stipendiary ministry”.
But, as a Church Commissioner, he was unable to support the present motion, with Dr Beasley’s amendment, due to Mr Smith’s warnings. Stipendiary-clergy numbers were set to fall from 7500 to 6500 by 2031. “This, too, is a crisis,” he said. “We need urgently to reverse that trend.” DSFs may not have the ability to spend the extra funds, and he warned that Parliament’s Ecclesiastical Committee may not find the laws expedient. His own amendment would nudge the talk “into very closely mown short grass, where we are going to have the ability to discern more rigorously essentially the most fruitful way forward”.
Dr Beasley said that it was “significantly better” to place the “real control” surrounding decisions about how you can get essentially the most value from the Commissioners’ distributions into the hands of local people. His amendment contained “multiple safeguards designed to reply lots of the critiques made from the amendment”. He urged: “Let’s not accept more conversation as an alternative to motion. It simply lets the identical small circle resolve and deliver more of the identical.”
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said that his diocese had supported the motion until the announcement of the Triennium Funding Working Group (TFWG) spending plans, which was “like waking up on Christmas morning and finding Santa is even nicer than you thought”. He continued: “I don’t desire a no-strings subsidy, because that can encourage torpor and disincentivise missional imagination.” Nor did he need to be “financially dependent”, because people in Lancashire were “proud about paying their very own way”. The diocese needed each formula-driven support and grant funding, he said. “There is a presumption in some quarters that this debate is SMMIB versus the parish. In Blackburn, it’s SMMIB that’s renewing the parish.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), a member of the Archbishops’ Council and the TFWG, backed Dr Wilcox’s amendment, but understood the “frustration concerning the continual rounds of bidding and the work and energy that goes into that and the will to rebalance how we distribute the historic resources”. There was a necessity for a debate about “how we do the long-term sustainable funding of a parish church and a priest in every place, since it’s really expensive and it’s really necessary. It is our core business.” She described the TFWG as “the most effective committee process I even have ever been in”.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham), a member of the Archbishops’ Council, said: “We could simply release the cash, assuming that across the dioceses we might reach the purpose where we’re all equally sharing a passionate and disciplined commitment to mission and growth. The hard truth is that we aren’t there yet.” In one or two places, “disciplined investment” in youth ministry through SMMIB had meant that numbers had recovered to 2019 levels. But, in other dioceses, the numbers had halved. “It is a sure sign that we aren’t yet in a spot where the major motion would work.” Dioceses reported that the SMMIB process was a “stimulating” partnership.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said that one query facing the Synod was “Where does power lie? So far, now we have seen a phalanx of Church Commissioners and a member of the Archbishops’ Council coming forward to inform us that power best lies of their hands. . . All of our experiences across the country tell us that individuals who know best how you can minister to their individuals are those on the bottom.”
The Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, spoke in support of the decision for a redistribution of funds “in order that dioceses can discern how best to support their shared life and sustain a Christian presence inn every community”. The “dire shortage of cash” within the DSFs was having a “seriously antagonistic impact on the welfare of parishes and the well-being of clergy. Growing annual deficits mean we’re cutting an increasing number of clergy posts, with those that remain spread thinner and thinner.
“At the identical time, we place an increasing number of pressure on the remaining few with talk of measurable outcomes based on numbers of worshippers, as if success in ministry can or should ever be defined in such terms. . .
“We must recognise that morale is low in lots of parishes, who see pastoral reorganisation bringing clusters of churches together under the leadership of fewer clergy. Stress levels are high amongst clergy, a few of whom, especially in smaller churches, feel like they’re failing, and it’s difficult to see how we will increase vocations to ordained ministry if people see that we don’t have the funds to pay the stipends.”
Obtaining grant money was “enormously time-consuming and comes with restrictions which, crucially, mean appointments should be time-limited. Nine years may seem to be a protracted time, but parish churches have been built on the religious and spiritual capital of centuries, and the Holy Spirit can’t be expected to act inside the scope of our predetermined timescales.”
Dr Wilcox’s amendment was carried: Bishops 22-9, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 89-75, with eight recorded abstentions; Laity 87-83, with nine recorded abstentions.
Continuing the talk, Canon Kate Massey (Coventry) asked for a change of narrative. Until six weeks earlier, she had been the only real priest in a parish qualifying for Lowest Income Communities Funding, with 15,000 people and a schools ministry for 2000. Listening to speeches that called for increased SMMIB funding to revitalise parishes and secure more vocations and young people in parishes that had already had significant funding support was “bittersweet”.
She had served with a “faithful community of believers who’re chasing an ever-receding horizon of cost-of-ministry payments . . . It’s so disheartening to be in that space and feel like you might be continually being told you might be failing, without the resources it’s essential do what you think God is looking you to do. Please can now we have more trusting [of] parish priests.”
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, had, he said, felt “hugely conflicted” throughout the debate. He hoped that options for “concrete proposals” would come back to the Synod “sooner quite than later”. There was an 18-per-cent emptiness rate in Rochester. SMMIB was not the reply to all the things.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesAlison Coulter (Winchester), a former member of the Archbishops’ Council and the SMMIB, defended the Board’s work
The Archdeacon of Cheltenham, the Ven. Katrina Scott (Gloucester), said that the unique motion had been carried locally with high levels of support. Parish ministry meant coping with “highly difficult funds, with small PCCs doing amazing jobs, taking good care of beautiful missional buildings and really continuously coming near running out of cash”. She was usually asked whether the Commissioners could help.
The Revd Adrian Clarke (London) is the Vicar of a Bishop’s Mission Order church-plant established five years ago. He said that it had grown to be one of the vital diverse churches that he knew: 27 nations were represented, and there was a “thriving” youth group. Funding from SDF was drying up after three years, nonetheless, and the Archdeacon had said that no more cash was available. There needed to be a “whole change of culture in the best way we do things”.
Alison Coulter (Winchester), a former member of the Archbishops’ Council and the SMMIB, defended the Board’s work, about which, she suggested, “myths” had been voiced. “We don’t impose our ideas on dioceses,” she said. SMMIB bids weren’t for a “parallel Church outside the parish system, but for a renewal of parishes for the cure of souls”. She had been elected by the Synod and was not an “unaccountable faceless bureaucrat”, and she or he was disenchanted to listen to the SMMIB’s work being “trashed by two bishops which have not consulted with us”. The Board sought to be accountable to the Synod.
The Archbishop of York was in favour of the amended motion. There was a necessity for a “conversation a few reset between the national and the local . . . and greater accountability of the national to the local, in addition to the opposite way round”. He had lived with the “struggles and unintended consequences” of replacing the Darlow formula, he said. The Church needed to hold on “investing strategically” and to take care of historic funding.
The amended motion was carried by 361-7, with 14 recorded abstentions. It read:
That this Synod
Noting the precarious financial position of many dioceses, concerns concerning the approach to National funding, and the challenges of sustaining stipendiary ministry in dioceses:
a) Recognise the successful management of the Church’s historic endowment over a few years by the Church Commissioners, and the resulting significant uplift in recent triennia in distributions, and calls upon the Church Commissioners to proceed to make available the utmost sustainable level of distributions in support of parishes and the work of clergy and other ministers
b) Welcome the greater level of stakeholder engagement which informed the spending plans for 2026-28, including the commitment to handle concerns about clergy welfare through increasing clergy stipends and a variety of other measures, and the commitment to extend funding for ministry in essentially the most deprived communities
c) Call upon the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners to proceed that engagement any longer, including ensuring Synod has a more formal role in the event of the long run Funding Framework at a formative stage, as proposed within the draft National Church Governance Measure
d) Call upon the Business Committee of the General Synod to schedule early in the following triennium a full debate that can enable Synod to specific its view on the approach to disbursing funding, including support for local stipendiary ministry. This must be based on robust financial modelling to avoid unintended consequences and to tell the event of the Funding Framework.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
