|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Too many bishops?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Over on the TICTH thread, L'organist said:
quote:
The central structures of the CofE needs to learn to live within its means. More, it must understand that the top-heavy hierarchy is not affordable.
Suffragans were introduced when church attendance was high and it was assumed that churchgoing would remain fairly steady. In fact numbers are now roughly half (being generous) of what they were in the 1960s.
Yet the number of bishops hasn't fallen - in fact many suffragans have been added since the mid 60s.
Taking an average weekly attendance of 1.6m in the 60s there was one bishop (of any type) per 14,500 people; in 2013 that figure has changed to one per 7,230.
If you call the numbers in the pew 'product' then it is clear that productivity has halved over the past 50 years - and the workforce on the shopfloor (in parishes) has fallen with it; but management numbers have remained the same, or in some cases has even increased (there are also more archdeacons).
Quite apart from being unaffordable this is unnecessary - demonstrably so since the church at national level is no better run than it was, it just costs more.
I am a bit unconvinced by the figures and wanted to debate this one, so have brought it to Purgatory.
So are there too many bishops?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In terms of the then and now comparison, in what ways have bishops' roles changed ? That surely effects how many you need.
(Also, is ratio of bishops to church-goers the most relevant metric, or should it be the ratio to numbers of parishioners, or to number of priests.)
[ 29. September 2014, 06:40: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Looking at the figures for Chelmsford, the second biggest diocese in England, there are over 460 parishes, 160 church schools, over 40,000 weekly church attenders, three suffragan bishops and the Bishop of Chelmsford. Also most of the people with roles in the diocese also have parishes.
That gives 1 bishop per 10,000 weekly attenders, which is midway between the figures given by L'organist. That rather suggests that the averaged out figures are covering some fairly big differences.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One could say that one bishop is too many bishops. Though, equally, that may explain why I'm not Episcopalian!
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
My opinion is that there are many too few bishops. I think there should be about ten times as many bishops, one for any medium-sized town, maybe one per five thousand churchgoers. So that churchgoers could interact with them maybe a couple of times a month. Then they would really be able to function as symbols of the presence of the Church, rather than as slightly remote "leader" figures.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This, is mildly interesting.
It would seem assistant bishops are paid the same as an experienced (Band 6) nurse, and diocesan bishops are paid the same as a charge nurse (Band 7).
Affordability is a different issue, but someone running a health trust would be earning over 100,000, the mean average company director salary is around 70,000 which is about the same as a head teacher in a secondary school - whilst a back bench mp will get 67,000.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
National minimum stipend for clergy is about 21,000, national average stipend across everyone is about 23,000. (Source.)
So 1 dioceasan + 2 assistants (3) costs the same as about 4.5 incumbents.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I don't know whether this is typical of Anglicanism, but I found this comprehensive job description re Bishops in the Church in Wales.
Looks like a leader/manager/practitioner role to me. The combination of those roles in any job normally mean that any job holder can be as busy as they choose to be; "hands off or hands on" depends on the way the freedom to delegate is used.
I don't know what the cost breakdowns look like, nor what the long-term affordability factors are. On general grounds, there does seem to be room for arguing in favour of less bishops and some rationalisation of the current structures.
From the outside, and from conversations with Anglicans I know well in Norfolk, an underlying factor is the slow but inexorable breaking down of the parish system and the considerable problems that produces for all local ministers in trying to maintain "a light in every community".
Nonconformists in independent settings seem more inclined to travel, and migrate, and in general we have no choice over "cutting our coat to fit our cloth". Affordability issues can bite hard and immediately.
Larger ecclesiastical groupings may have more scope to share resource and make longer term plans to ensure that affordability can be maintained. But in the long run, "cutting coat according to cloth" must apply. Increasing the numbers of OLMs, Readers etc, spreading the paid clergy thinner, has probably helped with the some of the costs, but there does seem to be scope for applying some cost-cutting at bishop level.
That's very much a managerial rather than spiritual view, and one from outside Anglicanism.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This proliferation of posts isn't just an Anglican thing. The old Baptists Districts used to have one "Superintendent" and a Secretary. Now - under what is admittedly a slightly different structure - each has a number of Regional Ministers.
I think there are two main reasons for this. One is good: a recognition that you don't just need a bishop-like figure to act as a figurehead and offer pastoral care to the pastors (a gross over-simplification, I know); you also need specialist people to encourage and teach the church in areas such as Mission. The other reason is simply that life has got more complicated, with churches operating under much more regulation and therefore needing guidance and help on these issues.
The danger as you multiply posts is that you then need more people to support them, and so the process all-too-easily multiplies and mushrooms ...
PS Cross-poster with Barnabas ... I agree with him.
[ 29. September 2014, 07:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
My opinion is that there are many too few bishops. I think there should be about ten times as many bishops, one for any medium-sized town, maybe one per five thousand churchgoers. So that churchgoers could interact with them maybe a couple of times a month. Then they would really be able to function as symbols of the presence of the Church, rather than as slightly remote "leader" figures.
I don't think that would make any difference. Let's face it, most regular CofE attenders don't know who their Area Dean or Archdeacon is, so why would it be any different with "local" bishops?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
In terms of costs (not to mention income), don't forget that these people also have to be housed, and often staffed at the expense of the diocese.
The role has changed significantly over time. Bishops are these days expected to visit their parishes, be involved with their work where necessary. Other levels like archdeacons are also a necessity to help support the clergy who are often being worked harder and harder, as numbers and resources shrink.
I think reducing the problems of the CofE to "too many bishops" is far too simplistic. There is a far bigger reorganisation needed. The problem as I see it is too much dependence on clergy (at whatever level). While there is an atmosphere that believes only ordained people can do a lot of the work within the church, this problem will continue.
There is something in TurquoiseTastics suggestion, but rather than calling these town-wide clergy "bishops", call them "vicars". Then let the non-ordained get on with engaging with God together. And the church could save thousands annually.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There is something in TurquoiseTastics suggestion, but rather than calling these town-wide clergy "bishops", call them "vicars". Then let the non-ordained get on with engaging with God together. And the church could save thousands annually.
Doesn't this come much closer to the Orthodox (or even African Pentecostal!) concept of "bishops"? Or does my comment simply betray my ignorance?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is confusion over customary use of language. Independent nonconformists generally use the term elder or overseer ( episkopos) and it is typically applied to a two-tier responsibility structure (elders and deacons) within a congregation. "Bishop" in English sounds rather like and is derived from the Greek episcopos. Someone who "watches over" the activities of a local church, rather than "watches over" the activities of several churches within a wider structure.
And in general, within nonconformism, elders or overseers don't get paid!
In this discussion, I'm using the term "bishop" in the sense in which it is understood within Anglicanism, not wishing to make any point about the rights and wrongs of different hierarchical understandings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
The church has this reputation for being overly hierarchical and top-heavy, but it's arguably a very flat leadership structure. I once worked at a big silicon valley company that claimed to have a very flat structure; this meant that nominally a typical manager had about 20 reports at all levels. In practice there was an unofficial structure that 'didn't count' so it was really less flat than this. I'd guess about 10 reports per manager would be considered exemplary in most flat commercial organisations.
Anyway, if you ignore deaneries (which don't seem to do anything that can really be considered managing) the church really is much flatter than this. Archdeacons (who are the most obvious 'pure senior managers') typically have hundreds of parishes and the number of bishops and so on seems quite reasonable compared to the number of CxOs in a division of a commercial company with as many senior managers as a typical diocese has archdeacons.
Arguably the difference here is that area deans have no real authority, and we can endlessly debate the right ratio of bishops to archdeacons to senior lay administrators, but the CofE actually seems to get by with relatively few people in authority compared to modern secular organisations.
Of course, it does have more than it had in the past. I get the impression that parishes were more autonomous in the past, so then the issue is whether that was really the good old days when the diocese didn't needlessly meddle in the affairs of parish life, or is all this greater accountability actually serving a useful purpose of stopping parishes going off the rails, helping clergy become better at their jobs and so on.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
As always, finding the figures for salaries (stipends) is fairly easy but, because of the total remuneration package, the salary is only part of the story.
The National Average Stipend for 2013-14 was £24,020 - which was an increase of 1.8% over the previous year. However, one has to add to this the value of the remuneration package (housing, insurance, council tax, amount towards heat & light, etc, etc) which in 2013-14 was an additional £9,950. So, for 2013-14 the NAS package for Cof E clergy was £33,970 and that is the amount that needs to be compared to the rest of the working population (latest figures from Church House used [ref GS MISC 1065]).
Going to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Nationally the average total salary including bonuses and overtime for the same period was £24,856 (private sector £24,752, public sector £25,428). However, since bonuses and overtime are uncertain the average regular income should be used for comparison, so the figures are £23,400 (private £22,984, public £25,220).
For comparison a full year working 40 hours per week on the Minimum Wage would give you £13,125.
Now those figures are just for parish clergy; office holders are paid more, the minimums being as follows:
Residentiary Canons £25,630
Archdeacons £32,360
Deans £33,120
Assistant Bishops (full-time) £32,060
Suffragan Bishops £33,120
Diocesan Bishops £40,600
To these figures should be added the amount for housing, etc, etc, etc. Even if one takes the same figure as for parish clergy this adds an extra £10,000 but since bishops can also claim for cleaning, etc, this amont should be higher. At this point the statistics unit at Church House closes down but a source tells me that taking into account things like cars (vehicle, tax, insurance, servicing, fuel when on duty, etc), furnishing of house office, cleaning (office, parts of house, windows), etc, etc the value of the whole package for a diocesan bishop should be put at a minimum of an additional £45,000 per year. (The package value for a suffragan should be taken as £30,000 minimum.)
Taking the costs of the package into account, the true costs are Diocesan bishop £85,000 per year, Suffragan £63,000.
In addition, some office holders can (and do) earn considerable extra income from broadcasting, writing, etc; bishops who sit in the House of Lord can (and most do) claim for attendance on the days they sit (figures available from the House of Lord). Yes, they will pay tax on it but they still get far more than most would have you, or I, believe.
So, Doublethink the cost of your 1 Diocesan and 2 Suffragans works out at a great deal more than 4.5 incumbents - a shade over 6.2 to be precise. (Oh, and don't forget the clergy who act as chaplains so are not available for parish ministry...)
Do you still want more bishops, TurquoiseTastic?
(edited by L'Organist - spelling!)
[ 29. September 2014, 09:57: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
L'organist asked - quote:
Do you still want more bishops, TurquoiseTastic?
The problem with answering that is a bit like answering the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?
In this case, "bishop" (overseer) has a specific meaning within both history and catholic ecclesiology. What it doesn't come with is a specific understanding of administrative setup or indeed earthly power. Yet that is what it has morphed into in the Anglican case. Possibly TEC is ahead of us here - they have a presiding bishop who is not a bishop of anywhere at all. A meaningless concept outside the administrative model of church.
So for those of us who consider the existing model sucks (count me among them), to say we need fewer bishops is problematic. It isn't radical enough. What we need is to get rid of this model of bishops entirely, then re-establish the role of bishop along the lines Turquoisetastic suggests.
Someone of course will need to do administration - a careful use of all resources is a good thing by any measure. But having bishops and archbishops do it is just poor management and unfaithful to what a church is called to be.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There is something in TurquoiseTastics suggestion, but rather than calling these town-wide clergy "bishops", call them "vicars". Then let the non-ordained get on with engaging with God together. And the church could save thousands annually.
Doesn't this come much closer to the Orthodox (or even African Pentecostal!) concept of "bishops"? Or does my comment simply betray my ignorance?
I cannot say with any confidence, but I think it comes much closer to the early church model - structurally at least. That doesn't necessarily mean it is better, but fits closer to the terms as used in the NT writings, if church leaders want to justify their roles on that basis.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Curiosity Killed - I didn't mean most bishops sat as Spiritual Lords, I meant that of those who attend most claim the daily allowance, and at the higher rate.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
<snip>To these figures should be added the amount for housing, etc, etc, etc. Even if one takes the same figure as for parish clergy this adds an extra £10,000 but since bishops can also claim for cleaning, etc, this amont should be higher.
All clergy can claim from the Church Commissioners the costs for heating, lighting and cleaning and garden upkeep of the church-owned house in which they are required to live. The Church Commissioners then deduct it from the stipend amount and pay it as an allowance for heating, lighting and cleaning and garden upkeep, which is then free of tax or National Insurance. This means the actual value of the claim is limited to the amount of tax or NI that would have been paid on it (and it presents no additional cost to the church over and above the stipend). However, HMRC then come along and (since clergy are not "lower paid employees") charge tax on it - except for that part of it which is actually used for work purposes, i.e. is a working expense. Without clear evidence to the contrary from the clergy person concerned, HMRC assumes that no more than 25% of the payment is needed for the usage of the clergy house for work purposes, and charge tax on 75%. Thus the end value of the claim is the NI that would have been paid on it plus the tax that would have been paid on a quarter of it.
Some bishops are provided with official cars (even with chauffeurs in some cases) but only for use in their official duties. Any private use is expected to be paid for by the bishop himself. Other bishops use their own cars for official duties and claim mileage allowance for doing so (using HMRC's standard mileage rate) as parish clergy also do. Parish clergy are also entitled to claim for the cost of furnishing their studies etc.
I am not sure what the position is about the attendance allowance in the House of Lords. In some cases it appears to be used to defray travel and accommodation costs, and the costs associated with the bishops' work in the House of Lords. I don't know if they then keep any balance, or whether it is passed on either to the Diocesan Office as an offset to expenses paid by the diocese, or accounted for to the Church Commissioners as an offset against expenses they pay or against the bishop's stipend. (This happens for parish clergy with fees for weddings, funerals etc. They don't affect the stipend received by the individual clergy person concerned, but are accounted for to the paying authority to help pay the stipend.)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Orthodox posters here will correct me if I'm wrong, but in countries like Greece any sizeable town has a Bishop.
So, in UK terms you'd have a Bishop of Huddersfield, say or a Bishop of Yeovil or a Bishop of Sale or Altrincham ...
But the Bishops are drawn from the ranks of the monastics - and I've heard Orthodox clergy complain that Athens is full of monks living in flats and simply sat around waiting for the call to some place or other ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So for those of us who consider the existing model sucks (count me among them), to say we need fewer bishops is problematic. It isn't radical enough. What we need is to get rid of this model of bishops entirely, then re-establish the role of bishop along the lines Turquoisetastic suggests.
Someone of course will need to do administration - a careful use of all resources is a good thing by any measure. But having bishops and archbishops do it is just poor management and unfaithful to what a church is called to be.
The trouble is, the very word 'bishop' brings to mind (at least for English christians) someone who wears imperial purple, lives in a palace, and is called 'My Lord.' Mediaeval - and later, up to the 19th century - bishops had vast dioceses at a time when travel was many times more difficult. So they were princes rather than pastors.
The modern C of E has tried to tweak this in a number of ways. Smaller dioceses (though as in the case of West Yorkshire that has gone backwards), more suffragans and archdeacons to share the load. But it hasn't grasped the nettle and restored proper pastors, Fathers-in-God, to smaller communities. The most radical, and money-saving, way would be to make the priest in charge of every major parish a bishop, paid a stipend; pay a small number of lay administrators, and allow the rest of the clergy to earn their living in secular employment. As long as said bishop didn't insist on dressing up and behaving as a mediaeval prince.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Quite so, Angloid.
The other thing about it is that it's fairly independent of different views of episcopacy so should not be contentious on a churchmanship* basis.
(* Don't like the word - can't think of a better one)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Curiosity Killed - I didn't mean most bishops sat as Spiritual Lords, I meant that of those who attend most claim the daily allowance, and at the higher rate.
Are you suggesting that Bishops should be expected to attend the House of Lords at their own expense?
MPs have been paid salaries since 1911, and other peers get attendance allowances etc. For so long as remains the case that the nation expects to draw on the counsel of its Lords Spiritual, it should make sure they are not left out of pocket.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Enoch, I'm just curious how it costs the bishop of, say, London £300 to attend the House for one day: that amount is expected to cover overnight accommodation (if required), travel and food, so I'm curious how someone who lives less than 4 miles from Westminster can claim £300 - unless, of course, someone at Church House or the Commissioners has calculated that as a proportionate amount based on salary?
No I'm not suggesting that bishops be left out of pocket - but just how deep are those pockets?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well if it's not a Dead Horse it should be, and it's certainly a tangent, but I can't resist saying that bishops in the House of Lords is part of the problem. We are the only nation in the world, AFAIK, apart from Saudi Arabia I think (or another Islamic state, someone will know which one), where unelected religious leaders are part of the legislature.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As always, finding the figures for salaries (stipends) is fairly easy but, because of the total remuneration package, the salary is only part of the story.
The National Average Stipend for 2013-14 was £24,020 - which was an increase of 1.8% over the previous year. However, one has to add to this the value of the remuneration package (housing, insurance, council tax, amount towards heat & light, etc, etc) which in 2013-14 was an additional £9,950. So, for 2013-14 the NAS package for Cof E clergy was £33,970 and that is the amount that needs to be compared to the rest of the working population (latest figures from Church House used [ref GS MISC 1065]).
So in total, about the same as a nurse.
quote:
For comparison a full year working 40 hours per week on the Minimum Wage would give you £13,125.
Well you could pay all your clergy a flat rate, and you could pay them all the minimum wage.
But.
a) Most people on minimum wage also then require benefit payments to top up their income to a workable income.
b) Tied housing creates separate wage issues
C) Long term consequences in terms of pensions
But in general, there is no reason why you couldn't just have a national pro rata stipend, index link it, and pay a living wage premium in high cost areas.
Then have centralised expenses allowance.
quote:
Taking the costs of the package into account, the true costs are Diocesan bishop £85,000 per year, Suffragan £63,000.
In terms of secular comparison, those still seem like reasonable salaries based on length of training and experience and level of responsibility. For example.
quote:
So, Doublethink the cost of your 1 Diocesan and 2 Suffragans works out at a great deal more than 4.5 incumbents - a shade over 6.2 to be precise.
So roughly double.
Is your problem with the number of bishops, or with the cost of bishops ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
My opinion is that there are many too few bishops. I think there should be about ten times as many bishops, one for any medium-sized town, maybe one per five thousand churchgoers. So that churchgoers could interact with them maybe a couple of times a month. Then they would really be able to function as symbols of the presence of the Church, rather than as slightly remote "leader" figures.
Robert Farrar Capon suggests something like this in one of his books. Have more bishops (and fewer priests and more deacons!). The episcopate would be less of a Big Deal and have more immediate involvement with local ministry. I can find the citation but I'd have to dig around a bit.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It is certainly hugely encouraging when the bishop pays a visit to our church, to realise that we are not ploughing along entirely on our own, but that the wider church has noted that we exist, and could sometimes do with some help. And, in this supposed secular world, it's amazing how many people, who don't normally attend church, come along when they hear the bishop is in town. (Not an ideal situation, I know, but at least it means they do come to church for a change.)
If there were fewer bishops, the visits would have to be less often, which would be a tremendous shame.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
My opinion is that there are many too few bishops. I think there should be about ten times as many bishops, one for any medium-sized town, maybe one per five thousand churchgoers. So that churchgoers could interact with them maybe a couple of times a month. Then they would really be able to function as symbols of the presence of the Church, rather than as slightly remote "leader" figures.
Robert Farrar Capon suggests something like this in one of his books. Have more bishops (and fewer priests and more deacons!). The episcopate would be less of a Big Deal and have more immediate involvement with local ministry. I can find the citation but I'd have to dig around a bit.
Yes yes. More deacons. More permanent deacons. If you're going to have threefold orders you might as well take it seriously. At the moment the diaconate barely exists in its own right.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Yes yes. More deacons. More permanent deacons. If you're going to have threefold orders you might as well take it seriously. At the moment the diaconate barely exists in its own right.
And what would these deacons do?
Also, would they be paid or non-stipendiary?
Would there be any reason for having them, apart from the notion that there are supposed to be three orders of ministry?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
It's a bit depressing when stipendiary posts are being slashed across the country but there doesn't seem to be any commitment to cut back in the upper echelons, or from advisory or support positions. Our diocese has committed to losing one stipendiary priest per deanery, getting on for a ten per cent cut. Yet we hear nothing about savings in the diocesan office or at church house. Are they not happening or do we just not hear about them?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Yes yes. More deacons. More permanent deacons. If you're going to have threefold orders you might as well take it seriously. At the moment the diaconate barely exists in its own right.
And what would these deacons do?
Also, would they be paid or non-stipendiary?
Would there be any reason for having them, apart from the notion that there are supposed to be three orders of ministry?
I reckon these deacons would serve, primarily. Service. Isn't that what deacons are supposed to do? I reckon they would be mostly non-stipendiary.
Your last question is the most difficult. I am evo enough to say - well OK then, maybe we should just abolish the threefold ordering and not have a clergy/laity divide at all. But I am high churchy enough to be reluctant to do that. We have in the past made much of threefold ordering. So maybe we shouldn't just chuck it out. Instead let's take a look at the diaconate and think - what are deacons meant to be and what role are they supposed to perform? Maybe they might be important?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
iamchristian... - I'm out of touch now, but when those cuts in the number of stipendiary clergy were made here, the same sort of cuts were made in the diocesan office. That's when many roles that had been separately paid were linked to parishes. So the diocesan child protection officer took a parish (actually, for her I think it was a group of parishes), as did various other officers. That was alongside calculations of which roles were needed.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
To address a big issue suggests a radical solution.
1. Make parishes self funding at source. You pay for your "ordained" ministry. Smaller parishes "bid" for extra funds on the basis of being missional communities. You don't just get money you have to make a case
2. Pay Bishops/other clergy from a central source (rather like a quota) paid for by all parishes. No change from the present but much lower contributions say £40 per head of electoral rolls.
3. Increase lay participation in ministry at all levels. Bite the bullet about what the priesthood of all believers might mean in your local church. Does it really matter is the Eucharist is celebrated by a lay person provided they know what they are doing? Make sure you have effective leadership in very parish -- be prepared to split up groups to make the local church, local.
4. Make all decisions and meetings transparent.
5. Promote alternative/extra uses for all churches to raise funds: sadly the repairs burden of some churches is so great that they will have to close.
6. All pensions to be contributory and defined benefit schemes. Close the existing scheme to new entrants. All investments to be based on fixed and safe returns not the potential risks as now or as in the past.
7. Make Bishops accountable to local synods who will effectively run the Diocese.
8. Aaaah I see - the net result: become Baptists ... laughs
[ 30. September 2014, 06:51: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
To be fair, you didn't say anything about Baptism itself .... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
As a Baptist, working in a Baptist/URC church, I can see advantages and disadvantages in both ways of working. The chief problem with our Baptist model is that it can make local churches all too "parochial" and independent of each other, on the other hand they have the flexibility to respond to local situations. The problem with the Anglican model is - and I hesitate here, because I'm not sure if I'm right - that it appears to be more bureaucratic and may place less emphasis on individual churches being missional.
(BT prepares himself to be shot down in flames by enraged Anglicans ...).
In any case, I think a lot of existing Church structures need to be evaluated to see if they are fit for purpose in these modern days: even current Episcopal systems are surely not "set in stone" for ever. Such evaluation must not be solely finance-driven, though.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think it's complacency rather than something wrong with the structures, that makes CofE churches unmissional.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think it's complacency rather than something wrong with the structures, that makes CofE churches unmissional.
There is something wrong with the structures. They encourage complacency.
(But that something is completely different to anything we've been discussing on this thread)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I reckon these deacons would serve, primarily. Service. Isn't that what deacons are supposed to do? I reckon they would be mostly non-stipendiary.
As a minor aside, I've heard it argued (afraid I forget where) that the root of the word deacon means 'commissioned to serve', and some people are now arguing that the 'commissioned' bit is more important than the 'serve' bit.
Anyway, if we wanted a revived diaconate (which would probably be a Good Thing if we could agree what it was for), you'd need to make it more attractive than it currently is; otherwise you'll get as many candidates as we currently have. I suspect it's harder to become a distinctive deacon than a priest; you have to go through exactly the same selection and training but you have to persuade everyone why you want to do something which they might consider very unusual. I suspect there's also an issue that a lot of clergy are aware of a lot of problems filling rotas to celebrate communion, so want to ordain all suitable candidates as priests.
We're getting away from the subject of bishops, but my view is that if we want to rely more on unpaid people, we need to have considerably more flexibility about what roles exist. If someone can coherently describe a particular set of responsibilities and explain why they are called to those responsibilities and not others, they should be trained and licensed/ordained as necessary for that role, without being assessed and trained to do things they don't want to do.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think it's complacency rather than something wrong with the structures, that makes CofE churches unmissional.
Actually, I think there's something deeper going on here. If you are a State Church, I think you tend to unconsciously work with the assumption that everyone in the country is a Christian, unless they have consciously rejected the faith or are a member of another faith community. You may do mission with the sense of awakening a moribund faith but - unless you are specifically Evangelical - you may not go much further than that.
Nonconformists, by their nature, are sectarian and assume that everyone who is not "in" is, by default, "outside". They therefore have an inbuilt bias towards mission.
(I realise that those are gross generalisations, but I think there is some truth in them).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Enoch, I'm just curious how it costs the bishop of, say, London £300 to attend the House for one day: that amount is expected to cover overnight accommodation (if required), travel and food, so I'm curious how someone who lives less than 4 miles from Westminster can claim £300 - unless, of course, someone at Church House or the Commissioners has calculated that as a proportionate amount based on salary?
No I'm not suggesting that bishops be left out of pocket - but just how deep are those pockets?
Presumably, if he attends the House, then he also does some work in preparation for that attendance, and the allowance is intended to cover that. If he keeps it personally in addition to his stipend, then it may be quite a significant addition. If it is effectively used by the church to help pay the stipend he receives (and that would be my guess), then it is probably a fair enough amount to cover that use of his time. TBH, without knowing what the attendance allowance is supposed to cover, and without knowing what the bishop does with it it is rather hard to comment meaningfully.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Bite the bullet about what the priesthood of all believers might mean in your local church. Does it really matter is the Eucharist is celebrated by a lay person provided they know what they are doing?
I see where EM is coming from in this discussion, but without raising theological hackles (or dead horses) it is possible to believe in the necessity of an ordained priesthood without the bureaucratic and financial luggage that often goes with it. There is no reason in even the highest sacramental theology which suggests that an ordained priest must also be a paid servant of the ecclesiastical machine.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Bite the bullet about what the priesthood of all believers might mean in your local church. Does it really matter is the Eucharist is celebrated by a lay person provided they know what they are doing?
I see where EM is coming from in this discussion, but without raising theological hackles (or dead horses) it is possible to believe in the necessity of an ordained priesthood without the bureaucratic and financial luggage that often goes with it. There is no reason in even the highest sacramental theology which suggests that an ordained priest must also be a paid servant of the ecclesiastical machine.
Indeed. I would (radically) suggest that if someone can demonstrate that they can do the sacraments in an orderly and dignified way and know about why they are done like that, they should be eligible for ordination.
That doesn't mean they get a license to preach; that might require studying the bible, theology and so on. (Priests without licenses to preach existed in the middle ages and just after the reformation; that's why you need the books of homilies)
And before you stand any chance of getting a stipend, you also have to do the 'how to run a church' course.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Does it really matter is the Eucharist is celebrated by a lay person provided they know what they are doing?
Basically I agree with you. We tend to think, though, that whoever celebrates the eucharist ought also to be competent and authorised to preach as well. Within the Church of England the local church level at which this is decided is the diocese. Training is expected and the person is 'commissioned' for this work with prayer and the laying on of hands. Once the recognition is given in one place it is transferable throughout the Church of England.
(Some people believe that a person is changed in some whole-life fundamental way by their commissioning, others view it more as being given permission/ authority for a role. For some it is part of full-time pastoral ministry, for others it is a role which they carry alongside other working life)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll meet your generalisation part way, Baptist Trainfan ... but I'm not entirely convinced that Anglicans automatically assume that everyone in the country is a Christian unless they have consciously opted out or else are members of another faith community.
I'm not sure the State Church has a great deal of bearing on that side of things ... I think there are other issues in play.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
We tend to think, though, that whoever celebrates the eucharist ought also to be competent and authorised to preach as well. Within the Church of England the local church level at which this is decided is the diocese.
I think it is also a serious mistake to detach the celebration of the eucharist from a pastoral role for a congregation. Hence I am uneasy about Leon's implication that all a priest needs to know is how to preside at a eucharist with dignity.
But having pastoral care does not necessarily equate with being a full-time paid stipendiary minister.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Exclamation Mark, I am uneasy about your suggestion that parishes should be self-funding, if by that you mean what I think you mean - that parishes should pay their minister themselves. I know this is the Baptist way, and I have seen what can be the outcome more than once. I have seen Baptist congregations starve their minister out of office by refusing to pay him. In either case, the Minister in question had started to preach a (perfectly Biblical) line of thought that his congregation didn't want to hear. When the Ministers refused to stop preaching that particular line, the congregation stopped paying the stipend and the Minister had to depart. Both of the congregations in question are now moribund.
At least the way that the Church of England operates means that this particular tactic cannot be used. Were this not the case, my own Vicar would have been forced out of office in the last 18 months for precisely the same reason - preaching a line that we didn't want to hear. That the line in question is the truth is neither here nor there. After all, why spoil a good story with truth?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Paying your own minister/priest from parish funds is precisely the way it works in the Anglican Church of Canada, plus the parish is effectively taxes by the diocese to support the diocesan office, bishop and staff. Parishes have to submit a budget each year and the share to the diocese is calculated. Although a parish generally has bought land and built the church in the past (we seem to be done building churches since the mid-1960s) the diocese is the technical and practical owner of it.
What this means in practical terms is that a bishop might decide to close a viable and self supporting parish so as to sell off the building and land, or to close a parish that is in the process of being redeveloped and would need some support for perhaps 3 to 5 years to become self supporting.
It also means, depending on the nature and character of bishop that clergy are appointed to parishes with incomplete support of the parish. Which sometimes seems a plot to push a viable parish into not being viable so as to liquidate the land and building.
Having been through 2 closed parishes, I probably see conspiracy through jade coloured spectacles.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
No Prophet, please don't over-generalise from the situation in your diocese to what happens everywhere in the ACC.
For example, in the diocese of Ottawa, clergy have not been paid directly by their parishes for 30 years or more. For much of that time, parishes were given a figure called "Cost of Priestly Services" by the diocese, and expected to pay that amount to the diocese. Only after repeated (3-4 years) of failure to make those payments in full did the diocese start to ask questions. And there was a (very modest) fund to h elp really poor parishes. Now, clergy are paid directly by the diocese, essentially out of diocesan revenue, which is raised from the parishes on a proportion of total income basis, just like other payments to the diocese.
There is nothing approaching a uniform system in the ACC.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
