Report of Diocesan Synod on 22 November 2008

Olympic Games

The Bishop of Barking, Rt Revd David Hawkins, noted that the outcome of the Olympic bid had been announced in summer 2005 and the Church’s strategy, “More than Gold”, had been launched in March 2006. Revd Canon Duncan Green had been appointed to head up the response for the Church of England. He had joined the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Para-Olympic Games (LOCOG). His work was not just for the Games, but for the legacy of the Games.

Canon Green said that the Olympic site was the size of the City of London and that 75% of the investment would provide a legacy which would regenerate the East End, where some of the most deprived areas in the country were to be found. He was working with four dioceses. His role was to find a place for the Church, to find the keys to open the doors, to deliver the messages, to manage potential volunteers and ensure that they were from the local communities, to work with other faiths, to reflect the needs of the community in the legacy and to hold developers to their promises. The legacy would be 10,000-11,000 jobs, 30,000 new homes, the Crossrail project and a TV centre.

The Cultural Olympiad had started in the summer with sites around the country. Education packs had been sent to schools. Opportunities to take part included serving as chaplains to sports clubs, linking with teams abroad, and engaging with local youngsters with a view to encouraging their participation as volunteers.

Members questioned whether the initiatives touched the lives of local residents and whether the buildings would be practicable for future use by residents. It was reported that a promised health centre had been removed from the budget. Canon Green replied that local people had to be motivated to take advantage of the opportunities. Provision would be made for a health centre in a modified form.

Outreach

Revd Simon Garwood reported on the success of community outreach work to the communities of Witham from Howbridge C of E Primary School.

Budget 2009

Canon Don Cardy reported that the Deanery Share showed an increase of 3%. Parishes had reported that they considered this reasonable. They were aware of the reduction of stipendiary clergy allocated to the diocese, and had agreed that the stipend should be 1% over the national benchmark. They had reservations about whether a 98% collection rate for the Parish Share could be achieved to balance the budget by 2011. Collection of Share in 2008 had been on target until August when there had been a sudden drop in receipts. Total expenditure in 2009 was up 2.5% after the reduction of five Clergy; stipend costs were up 3.4%. Some £2.5 million would come from the Archbishops’ Council, leaving £14.8 million needed.

The aim was to reduce the Parish Share shortfall to £300k or 98% collected. This compared with a current collection rate of 80%. The effect of the credit crunch was unknown. It was believed that regular payments, especially by standing order would continue, but that individual appeals would be more difficult to achieve. Areas of spending could be reduced to cope with any crisis.

In reply to questions Canon Cardy reported that curates’ housing was normally arranged well in advance. The spending on hospital chaplains was shared equally with the NHS. Also the increase for any deanery was capped at a maximum of 3% over the diocesan increase, which this year was also 3%, making a combined limit of 6%.

Role of the Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF)

Canon John Spence announced that funds raised for the Church Urban Fund had exceeded £125,000. The Fund helped to ensure that there was a Christian presence in every community.

He said that the DBF substantially facilitated that presence. The role of the DBF was to manage resources, to ensure the future of the Church through stewardship, to liberate people to fulfil their roles, to budget and balance the books, to discern the appropriate use of assets and to manage the challenges of the short and long term.  The DBF promoted best practice, assisted in training PCC treasurers, rural/area deans, and lay chairs, signposted resources and drove and supported initiatives.

‘Mutual Responsibility for Mutual Support’

Steven Webb introduced a paper with this title. He said that the Diocese received more in support from the National Church than it paid in central costs.  The National Church was based on the principle of mutual support. This principle was followed in the allocation of Share to the deaneries. This was mutual support from parish to parish not from parishes to the Diocese, and the system was fair and transparent. During 2005, 2006 and 2007 the proportion of Parish Share collected had been 93.5%, 94.5% and 94.6% respectively, with a target of 98%. In 2007 80% of parishes paid in full, 15% of deaneries paid in full, and 38% of deaneries paid over 98%. The deficit in 2007, however, was £716,000. He asked whether some parishes could give more than the 100% requested, and argued that money was a tool for mission.

A new classification scheme for parishes would build on current success, support parishes seeking improvement and provide an incentive. To achieve the highest level, ‘Platinum’, a parish would be required to have paid 100% or more of Share for the previous three years (on a rolling basis) and to have made regular (preferably monthly) payments through the year. A ‘Gold’ parish would have paid 100% or more of its Share for the previous three years (but not made regular payments). A ‘Silver’ parish would have paid 96% or more of their share for the past three years starting with 2008, would have undertaken a stewardship campaign in at least one of the past two years, would have asked for assistance from the deanery, acted on recommendations and formally considered the Diocesan Christian Giving Strategy during the past two years. A ‘Bronze’ parish would have paid less than the 96% during the past three years, but would have met the other conditions of the ‘Silver’ level. A parish that did not meet the Bronze classification (by 2010) would be considered a ‘Won’t Pay’ parish.

A ‘Won’t Pay’ parish would:

  1. Be ineligible for diocesan loans.
  2. Be ineligible for Mission Opportunity funding.
  3. Be brought to the attention of the London Over the Border Fund with a request that the classification be taken into consideration.
  4. Not be eligible to receive a curate.
  5. Not be considered for any improvements to a clergy house (not including normal maintenance/repairs).
  6. Have this taken into account at the next vacancy and consideration given to the viability of the parish and potential pastoral reorganisation.

The following points were made in discussion: the ‘won’t pays’ needed encouragement; robust actions were welcomed; sometimes the problems were outside the control of the parish; the scheme needed to be rolled out; the support from the deanery needed to be defined; and the possibility of withholding faculties for ‘won’t pays’ should be considered. Steven Webb stated that the scheme would start with a revised porch card; an item should be placed on the deanery synod agenda; and withholding faculties was not lawful.

Revision of the Area Scheme

The Bishop of Chelmsford, Rt Revd John Gladwin, said that this scheme had not been updated since it started in the 1980s. A new Order would clarify current practice. The diocesan bishop delegated responsibilities to the area bishops.

In reply to questions Bishop John commented that the area bishops would continue to ordain priests but this was the diocesan bishop’s responsibility; the scheme should be reviewed every five years approximately; and the Act of Synod 1993 was not part of Church law.

Retirement of Ven Peter Taylor, Archdeacon of Harlow

Bishop John noted that it was Archdeacon Peter’s last Synod. Members joined the Bishop in wishing him and his wife, Joy, a long and happy retirement.

Pastoral Planning

Bishop John said that Dioceses Commission had suggested a strategic approach; and following the retirement of the present Archdeacon of Harlow, the next appointee would be required to work with colleagues in regard to pastoral planning. The Archdeaconry of Harlow was small and contained three deaneries, while the Barking Episcopal Area was large. The Colchester Episcopal Area was also stretched.

Members made a number of comments. Consideration should be given to the boundary with St Albans, since the town of Harlow was expanding in that direction. The boundaries with London Diocese should be reviewed. A new Archdeacon of Harlow needed to be appointed quickly in order to avoid over-burdening other teams. Chelmsford Diocese included a diversity of communities and a variety of ministries.  The diocese was three times the size of other dioceses. There was a question of proportionality in that Colchester had the smallest population of the Areas but the largest geographical area. The transfer of some deaneries from Colchester to Harlow should be considered. It might be difficult for the new archdeacon to be objective if the size of Harlow town doubled.

Bishop John replied that dialogue with St Albans would continue but London had wider issues. It was time to open up the agenda and give time and collaborative work to produce a diocese in shape for the future.

Responses to questions

  1. Bishop John: Once a resignation had been accepted, the recruitment process began; if a suitable candidate were not found, the process re-started. The need to work with patrons was recognised. There was no intention to save money by an interregnum, but sometimes a parish needed space to make the right appointment. This might well include time between incumbents.
  2. Canon John Spence: Two of three property sales intended to repay a loan had fallen through. £1.5 million of the loan would be outstanding at the end of the year. There would have been a surplus if the sales had gone through, but that the situation was now uncertain because of the timing of the sales.
  3. Canon John Spence: Unbudgeted interest lost would be £86k in 2008 and a further cost would arise in 2009. A £50k contingency remained. He was optimistic that the budget would be achieved. The budget set was the best that could be planned in the current climate. There was an agreed five-year loan facility that could not be broken.
  4. Steven Webb: The fabric of clergy housing was inspected every five years.  The decor was the responsibility of the parish. The incumbent had the right to refuse entry except on health and safety grounds. Wiring was included in the inspection. This had added to costs in recent years.
  5. Steven Webb: The Havering Deanery Synod motion on the place of the Bible had gone to the Synod Business Committee in June. They had advised that it was not in a suitable form. The motion had been rephrased and was in the schedule of motions for General Synod. The words which had been lost in the rephrasing could be appended in a separate paper. No previous motion had previously gone to General Synod as far as he knew. He would take steps to work more closely with the Business Committee. There was a significant waiting list of motions but it was anticipated that the motion would be on the February 2009 agenda.
  6. Steven Webb: A report was given on the current composition of the Vacancy-in-See Committee.  The Registrar added that there were some vacancies; he would advise as soon as possible. It was reported that Julian Litten had resigned from General Synod; a vacancy had, therefore, arisen.
  7. Steven Webb:  According to the feedback forms, 428 additional people had attended church on Back to Church Sunday. This was lower than expected. This was a national initiative and the date was fixed by a national organising committee. It was outside school holidays and other major festivals but coincided with some harvest festivals. No representations had been made to the organisers in regard to the date. The date for 2009 would be 27 September.
  8. Steven Webb: A full reply would be given to a question on the effect of interregna on attendance at the next Synod.

Date of next meeting

7 March 2009 in Chelmsford Cathedral

Page last edited: 06/01/2009
Feedback on this page: contact Webmaster