 |
| Lord Harries of Pentregarth, former Bishop of Oxford Source: LGBTConservatives |
Lord Harries goes on to "clarify" a few points:
"Our main recommendation was that the parish system as we have known and loved it is no longer sustainable. We recommended that every parish should continue to have a worshipping community, but that it should in most circumstances be led by a self-supporting priest or licensed lay minister. We envisaged really big ministry areas, with 20 or more parishes, which would have a small team of paid clergy, who would be appointed first to this and only then to one or more of the parishes, if they were large enough.
"We realised that there was a danger that clergy would just go on being asked to take on more and more parishes in a way that was unsustainable rather than be part of a structure that required a different mind-set. Obviously, the success of this new system depends on each worshiping congregation’s being able to raise up its own leadership team, and we did not underestimate the real difficulty in doing that in rural areas with tiny congregations.
"In their letter, the clergy who are not happy about ministry areas point to a lack of growth, even decline, under the new situation. But we did not believe that the new structure would by itself bring about growth. Our concern, quite simply, was with the sheer survival of the Church in Wales in what is going to be a very difficult period for a long time to come, for reasons that have nothing to do with the structure of the Church, but have to do with our failure to recapture the imagination of our culture for the Christian story.
"Congregations may remain small for some time, but they will be there, and 'A small church is not a failed church,' a lesson that I learnt from Tony Russell, a colleague when I was Bishop of Oxford.
"I believe that the Church in Wales is to be congratulated in facing up, ten years ago, to the seriousness of the situation and that there are important lessons to be learnt by the Church of England from our recommendations, particularly in rural areas."
Noted for his liberal views, Lord Harries believes in so-called 'equal' marriage and "warmly welcomed" the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill.
Also, from Wikipedia: "On 11 February 2017, Harries was one of fourteen retired bishops to sign an open letter to the then-serving bishops of the Church of England. In an unprecedented move, they expressed their opposition to the House of Bishops' report to General Synod on sexuality, which recommended no change to the church's canons or practices around sexuality. By 13 February, a serving bishop (Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham) and nine further retired bishops had added their signatures; on 15 February, the report was rejected by synod, plunging the Church of England into 'turmoil'."
Lord Harries does not comment on the 'do as we please' Church in Wales bishops and its top heavy structure.
Physician heal thyself!
How much damage Harries has inflicted on the CinWs! Sweeping assertions that the parish system does not work are made but not demonstrated convincingly. What a menace is this man! But he was specifically chosen for the hatchet job. With such friends, who needs enemies?
ReplyDeleteRob
The interesting thing about the Harries Report is that although each Diocese held a clergy and laity "consultation"; from conversations I have had with people from other Dioceses, not one thing from the clergy or laity found its way into the final report. The Report was a stitch-up by Barry Morgan and his cronies.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Governing Body approved the Report, Shirley told his Diocesan Conference that parishes choosing not to co-operate with implementing the Report "would be put into hospice care. All sustenance would be withdrawn from them and the parish would be allowed to die quietly."
The most interesting aspect of all is that everything that applied to Bishops, the six dioceses, archdeacons, and diocesan offices have been totally ignored. The chocolate teapot of Bangor has already indicated his unwillingness to change anything.
Seymour
What Harries describes as "progress" most other people recognise as regress.
ReplyDeleteIf, as claimed, "A small church is not a failed church", with less than 15,000 Sunday worshippers across the entire Principality, how would Harries define a failed church?
The man is a fool.
You can argue a small church is not a failing church if it is holding its own and even growing. When it is haemorrhaging numbers like a radioactive isotope with a short half-life, we can safely conclude it is doing exactly that. The only thing Harries was correct on was trimming the hierarchy which has been ignored.
ReplyDeleteWHAMAB
@ WHAMAB:
DeleteYour last sentence calls to mind a conversation which I had over forty years ago with the late Bishop Cliff Wright, then still just archdeacon of Newport, in which I set out some of my misgivings about the direction of Welsh Anglicanism in the face of an oncoming crisis which, in my view, the Church in Wales had barely begun to comprehend, let alone address.
I remember that he replied saying 'You're suggesting in fact that the church is too much tacitly focused on providing a career structure for clergymen'! Ignoring the Harries Commission's recommendations around 'trimming the hierarchy' while radically implementing all else suggests that's no less the case now than I argued that it was back then.
Except that now, perhaps, the emphasis is on maintaining the career structure of SENIOR clergymen, while all the rest are tipped into the general mix!
Thanks John for your comment. Thinking about a 'failing church', I believe it is a well known phenomenon of a failing organisation that it becomes top-heavy. In this regard the Church-in-Wales is bang-to-rights. The exacerbating factor is that Harries told us to become leaner 10 years ago!
ReplyDeleteWHAMAB
I'm no expert on the theories around 'organizational cultures', but instinct prompts me to feel that you may well be correct.
DeleteWhile he was Bishop of Oxford - Richard Harries had the perfect opportunity to divide his diocese into three new dioceses - Bucks, Berks and Oxon. Instead, we were given Area Bishops (Harries retaining Oxford and Milton Keynes under his wing) - a similar scheme which was adopted and then abandoned in the diocese of Chichester. Having served twice in the far south east of the Oxford diocese - the city of Oxford and the College Chapel cathedral felt very remote whereas I felt as though I belonged in and to Buckinghamshire under successive Bishops of Buckingham (in my time Burrows, Bennetts and Hill). It was also an enormous privilege to have attended two Bucks Clergy Conferences at St. George's House , Windsor which greatly assisted in creating a sense of cohesion and belonging to Beechy Bucks. I sincerely hope that the Church of England steers clear of the Ministry Areas scheme which has been adopted wholesale in Wales..
ReplyDeleteMission Communities are alive and well in the Diocese of Exeter. What is confusing is their names. Who can remember where Five Red Churches MC is ? Or call to mind that the Exe Valley MC is actually nine parishes located near the River Swine ?
DeleteOld Nick
hot off the press ie Church Times
ReplyDeleteTHE Dean of Llandaff, the Very Revd Gerwyn Capon, has withdrawn his complaint of bullying against the Bishop of Llandaff, the Rt Revd June Osborne (News, 1 April).
His action, announced on Tuesday, means that the case, which would have brought Bishop Osborne in front of a Church in Wales disciplinary tribunal, has been dismissed. The Dean has been on sick leave with work-related depression for two years, and, out of an expressed determination to vindicate his good name, has rejected offers of a settlement.
A diocesan statement said he had “voluntarily and unconditionally” withdrawn the complaint. The Revd Gavin Foster, joint-registrar of Salisbury diocese, and appointed by the tribunal as proctor to represent the Dean, deemed that there was “insufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof”.
Dean Capon, via his proctor, received the Bishop’s response to his complaint on 11 April. Instead of a planned meeting with the proctor on 20 April to formulate his case, the Dean notified the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Revd Andrew John, and the diocesan registrar, on 16 April that he wished to withdraw his complaint.
In a letter to the registrar, the proctor writes: “The case relies entirely on the evidence of the Dean. He has produced nothing in the way of supporting documents. People he suggested might support his case have, instead, supported the Respondent’s [i.e. the Bishop’s] case.
“Where documentary evidence exists — largely in the form of emails and text messages produced by the Respondent as part of her response — it tends to support the Respondent’s version of events rather than the Dean’s.
“While these messages have not been produced or documented as carefully as they might have been, there is no reason to doubt their authenticity. The messages generally suggest a much warmer and more collaborative relationship for much of the period in question than is consistent with the Dean’s account.”
The Dean, continues the proctor, ”appears to have reached a clear and settled decision to withdraw his complaint. As the person principally affected by the alleged behaviour of the Respondent, the tribunal will be reluctant to find a case proved without his support.
“My conclusion is therefore that the evidence available to me as proctor is clearly insufficient for me to satisfy the burden of proof in this case to the required standard. I am therefore presenting no allegations for the tribunal to adjudicate upon. . . I trust that this complaint can now be quickly concluded.”
In his judgment dismissing the case, Mark Powell QC, president of the disciplinary tribunal, commended Dean Capon’s action: “In my experience, cases such as these can quickly escalate out of control. It takes significant courage and grace to take a step back and reconsider one’s position once formal processes such as these have begun. I hope that this can be the trigger for healing and reconciliation between all involved.”
Bishop Osborne, in her first public comment on the matter, said: “I am pleased to learn that this matter is now resolved and the proceedings dismissed. It has been a challenging time for Llandaff Cathedral and the diocese. I am grateful for the support I have received from my colleagues and ask that we continue to keep the Dean in our prayers.”
Archbishop John said: “I welcome the clarity of the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s order, and that this matter has now reached a conclusion. My hope is that there is now a fresh opportunity to rebuild trust and to seek healing.”
posted by Cymraes yn Lloegr
I will resist the temptation to comment on the latest developments in Llandaff until a thread appears to address this issue.
ReplyDeleteFor now, readers may be interested in a piece by Canon Tiffer Robinson, a rural incumbent in Suffolk, who writes about the determination of one diocese to swim against the tide of reduign clergy posts and amalgamating parishes. The highlights are:
'We had a change of leadership with the arrival of a new Bishop. He announced soon after he arrived that the policy of cutting clergy posts to meet our shortfall in parish share was a plan for decline, and not for flourishing. Instead, for the past five years, our diocese has sought to counter a chronic annual deficit of around half a million through increasing giving and encouraging growth. You’d be hard-pressed to find a
diocese which didn’t claim to want to do the same, but these claims come to nothing if
combined with cutting clergy numbers. Although more clergy doesn’t always mean more growth, it is abundantly clear that cutting clergy leads to decline, and long term sustainable growth will only be a possibility with well-trained clergy who have the space and capacity to lead churches in mission.'
'And it worked. Year on year our deficit was being reduced, through cutting central costs and increasing giving from a number of sources. “Can’t pay” parishes were distinguished from “won’t pay”, with the former given support to increase rather than chastisement. The culture of the diocese has been gradually changing from one where “they” were seen as the enemy, to one where the challenges are shared. There is more openness and transparency in strategic decisions, and the diocesan synod actually feels informative and consultative. 2020 was going to be the year when our budget would break even for the first time, but covid put paid to that. Here the national church did step in with a 600k grant, paying for the equivalent of around 10 stipendiary priests, and our parish share collection remained remarkably high despite the situation. In 2021 it was even higher.'
'The biggest difference to my mind is the decision to stop cutting clergy numbers. The effect on clergy morale, and levels of trust between parishes and the wider diocese is
remarkable. It helps that we have a genuinely supportive senior team. Where some clergy in other dioceses were getting grumpy phone calls about where they were livestreaming from, we received regular calls from our bishops and archdeacons checking on our wellbeing. The knowledge that clergy and parish churches are valued, and seen as essential to the thriving of the Kingdom of God in Suffolk, is still cited often by clergy even today, especially as we see other dioceses facing the same problems going down a very different (but sadly well worn) path.'
Read the whole thing at
https://savetheparish.com/2022/04/26/saving-the-parish-is-possible-rev-canon-tiffer-robinson/
Thank you, Athelstan. It's blindingly obvious, isn't it? Cut clergy: cut congregations. Simples.
ReplyDeleteRob