Read on Twitter
I'm increasingly concerned about the prevailing rhetoric that "clergy cuts are necessary". https://twitter.com/MadsDavies/status/1356331392490217474
It feels a lot like panic. We've gone from (in the summer) "let's seek what God is saying for the future" to "we're all doomed!" https://twitter.com/MadsDavies/status/1356333940370497543?s=20
I completely accept that just keeping the show on the road won't help the Church of England. But it doesn't logically follow that you deliberately drive off the road and crash...
... in other, while it would be delusional to imagine that just keeping all the clergy in post will dramatically change anything, it's really just as myopic to imagine that cutting clergy isn't going to make a whole load of existing problems worse.
Good illustration of the problem here. But really nobody is saying "put more into parish ministry". Just questioning what is gained by removing it at this point. https://twitter.com/richardengland/status/1356333785923670019?s=20
There's wisdom here, although the parish vs SDF dichotomy isn't fair (might come back to that later if I don't get bored) https://twitter.com/Mark__Hart/status/1356205273178845185?s=20
I think I'm right in saying that every diocese has been reducing clergy numbers, usually in fits and starts, for decades. We've tested the policy to destruction.
Whilst it would be a bit wild to suggest that it has caused the decline, we can be nailed-on certain that it hasn't made things any better. https://twitter.com/CharliePeer/status/1356346895241777154?s=20
The principal problem with cutting clergy to balance the books is that the "solution" actually makes the problem worse: you accelerate congregational decline, so your income drops, and in a few years you have to do it all over again.
I'm sure the whole internet is now on tenterhooks for the great revelation of how to solve the Church of England's problems.
Well if it was that easy I would have just told you.
So 5 things to think about:
1/5 Take self-supporting ministry more seriously so that it's seen as a valid alternative for smaller churches. Offer non-patronising, non-exploitative working agreements and seek a more diverse pool of candidates.
2/5 Have a grown-up conversation with each benefice on a case-by-case basis about what ministry they want to support in their patch. Stop treating the diocesan giving income as a single monolithic stream when in reality it is hundreds of streams.
3/5 Build on the previous two points to re-balance the common fund system. At present, typically a minority of churches are supporting the majority - a healthy common fund would be the other way round.
4/5 The Church Commissioners need to share the cost, and urgently. It's increasingly embarrassing to listen to the talk about inequities between dioceses while the Commissioners sit quietly on a bank balance that a small country would be proud of.
5/5 Stop the obsession with church attendance as a measure of success. This is the body of Christ bearing witness to the world, not a football club.
Finally, on attendance: I don't actually want a subsidised church that nobody goes to (eg the Nordic model). It's just that the churches that are most anxious about numbers are typically those that are least likely to grow. And I suspect the same is true of dioceses.
Finally finally: other measures of growth are available - as per this excellent report by @hannahmerich https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/research/2000/01/31/the-grace-project
