Rethinking Episcopacy – issues and proposals
I welcome the
questions that are being raised about the future of episcopacy. Reflecting on
my nearly twenty years as a bishop and my time in General Synod since 1985, I
would say that there are many unaddressed questions which could with advantage
now be faced. I have highlighted in red those matters which are part of your
Terms of Reference.
Here is my
list:
1.
Monepiscopacy
·
The role of diocesan
bishops, their number, and the scale of responsibility
I
do not believe that vesting all authority in one person is a suitable model for
the Church. We draft all our legislation so as to make the Diocesan Bishop exercise
virtually untrammelled power. It places Diocesan Bishops in the invidious
position of being beyond contradiction, beyond challenge and beyond proper
accountability by virtue of the legislative and constitutional framework that
surrounds their office. No wonder that safeguarding mistakes are made, that
some Diocesans have become autocrats, that the pressures of the role lead some
into a lonely existence where they cannot confide or share anything. We need
leadership that is designed to be collegial, where the role doesn’t
automatically push the Bishop into isolation, where there is proper
accountability built into the structures. We have inherited a model from the
past and want to claim continuity with the Church Universal, but that doesn’t mean
that we shouldn’t look to reform what we have inherited – semper reformanda.
I would contend that we won’t solve the leadership and oversight problems
of our Church unless we are prepared to tackle monepiscopacy.
2.
Flexible
Geographical Jurisdictions
·
The appropriate
inter-action, mutual support, and leadership within regions
·
The overall number of
dioceses: should there be fewer dioceses and bishops, or more bishops but with
more localised apostolic and pastoral oversight without the current
differentials of stipend, housing, and public status?
·
Amalgamation, merger, or
acquisition – how to model bringing dioceses together
What
we have inherited has wonderful resonance with the past but is totally
inflexible in moving towards the challenges of the present and the future. In
order to understand the inheritance. Colin Podmore’s July 2008 paper for the
Dioceses Commission: Dioceses and Episcopal Sees in England is required reading.
If we are to continue to claim that we provide pastoral oversight of the whole
of England, we need to be (a) flexible in responding to relating to new local
government structures; (b) able to make changes which can take into account
changing population patterns; (c) ready to make pragmatic adjustments where our
boundaries simply do not make sense. The City of Peterborough problem (still
unsolved) and the question of Greater London (the subject of numerous reports
and proposals over the years) are two obvious examples. The 1973 Welsby Report Episcopacy
in the Church of England (GS 167) provides valuable insights into how
complex any diocesan reorganisation might be. A more light touch approach would
be grass roots confederations of dioceses, where between 2 and 5 dioceses were
placed together and asked to devise bottom up plans for better oversight and administration
(thus the Peterborough issue would be solved if Ely and Peterborough were part
of a unified diocesan structure, free to work out its own polity). It would
follow that deaneries and episcopal areas could be worked out on the ground in
the same way. There would be no more “suffragan” bishops, but area bishops with
particular relationships with major units of government. (Oxford’s model of
three counties with three Area Bishops is a good paradigm – what is not needed
is a separate bishop for the City of Oxford. Lichfield is a similar case). I
would ask the regions to go away and devise grass roots proposals – the
criteria would be (1) relate to the major seats of government (2) mirror local
authority boundaries where possible (3) redraw deaneries to be related to
today, rather than the tyranny of the medieval ditch and field pattern (4)
ignore the clamour of cathedrals
What might this
look like?
I think we need
to get Regional Groups to sit down and talk possibilities.
I’d start with:
·
Newcastle/Durham/York
·
Carlisle/Blackburn/Sodor
and Man
·
Liverpool/Manchester/Chester
·
Leeds/Sheffield
·
Derby/Southwell
& Nottingham/Leicester/Lincoln
·
Lichfield/Birmingham/Coventry/Oxford
(Oxford is an outlier)
·
Ely/Peterborough/St
Albans (St Albans could go with Oxford)
·
Gloucester/Worcester/Hereford
·
Bristol/Bath
& Wells
·
Exeter/Truro
·
Norwich/Eds
and Ips/Chelmsford
·
Salisbury/Winchester/Portsmouth/Guildford
·
Chichester/Canterbury/Rochester
·
London/Southwark
That would give
you about 14 Regional Units from which to devise new diocesan structures.
I don’t think
the differentials and remuneration levels are a major problem – Bishops could
live off the same level of stipend as clergy (though the General Synod has
consistently voted against the abolition of differentials). Decent PA and
office support and expenses are, however, crucial to being able to do the role
well.
3.
Suffragan Bishops
- The role and
diversity of suffragan bishops
Suffragan
Bishops (GS Misc 733) is required
reading on this. It identifies most of the things that are wrong with the way
in which Suffragans are currently forced to operate – episcopal curates, lack
of role definition, overlap and confusion with the role of archdeacons – but of
course nothing has ever been done to rectify any of the problems. As stated
above, I would get rid of the idea of suffragans – there should be Area Bishops
for localities, with distinct jurisdiction (shared with archdeacons and the
laity!) We should not perpetuate suffragan bishops who are just spare parts in
the system. An Area system is a better way of
expressing oversight and pastoral care.
4.
Non-geographical episcopacy
- The
appropriateness of only operating a geographical model of episcopacy
I am an advocate for the non-geographic role of bishops.
Obviously, models vary. I believe that the Bishop of Islington’s church
planting and apostolic role has made a major difference to the
re-evangelisation of England (and will be arguing for its continuation in
consultations with the Dioceses Commission).
The PEVs and the Bishop of Fulham are necessary and pragmatic
solutions to a conundrum. The Catholic PEVs are just about theologically
justifiable, given that constituency’s understanding of impaired communion. The
role of Maidstone has little theology behind it – it’s more about giving a
representative face to the complementarian position. None the less, these roles have proved useful
for holding the CofE together and offering oversight to those who might
otherwise feel marginalised.
There is thus nothing wrong in principle with
non-geographical roles. It would be quite hard to argue for their proliferation
at a time when the pressure is on to reduce the numbers of geographical
bishops!
5.
Personal
I reach compulsory retirement age
in July 2022, so I won’t be in office to see the implementation of all this!
Being an Area Bishop in London is a perfect context in which to work out an
appropriate level of episcopal oversight and pastoral care. 1.2m people, 4
local authorities, 150 clergy and 110 churches is a heavy workload, but one
which gives some insight into what a workable bishop’s role might be. I hope
that you can do some measurement of the experience of a few of us in order to
discern what you might recommend for the future.
For my part, I have indicated
that I would finish earlier (in 2021) if that would facilitate the appointment
of a person of colour as the next Bishop of Willesden. I would hope to able to
continue to serve London and the National Church for a bit longer after I end
my role in Willesden.
