It was so exciting first time, I thought I'd have another go.
The first part of the Diocesan Synod on Saturday consisted of a discussion about how many times a year a Deanery Synod should meet as a minimum - 2 or 3. This was such a riveting topic that it took about 20 minutes to resolve. The consensus was 2.
The key question was never asked, of course, which was to ask what the point of a Deanery Synod actually was. If you're clear on the purpose of something, then its frequency becomes self-evident. No-one asked, and I wanted to get to the next item.
Deanery Synods are the level of meeting between a local parish and the Diocese, but falling between those stools leaves it a bit lost. It provides the voters for General Synod elections, and it's a meeting where reps from parishes can listen to talks of general interest, organise some shared events and can be consulted by the 'higher' levels of church government on issues (e.g. votes on ordination of women were taken and fed back to Diocesan Synods) However, they have no power, because they have no money.
Abolition has been proposed, which would have some positives, but would also risk a greater distancing of parishes from the central administration. The alternative is to give them more power. There's a clumsy Euro word, which makes a very good idea sound horrible - subsidiarity. That means get decisions as close to people as possible - take them at the 'lowest' level of decision making that you can.
Maybe the best hope for Deanery Synods would be to give them real money to make real decisions about ministry staffing, mission and priorities. That would given them some focus, and might even help churches to look beyond their boundaries as their shared interest in a local area would be at stake.
Just a thought.
Showing posts with label Diocesan Synod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diocesan Synod. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Lent Blog 17: Diocesan Synod
I can tell that title has got you excited already!
Church of England Synods are gathering of elected representatives from clergy and lay people, alog with some representative co-opted members. There are 3 levels: Deanery (local area, little power), Diocesan (whole Diocese), General (national for England).
One item on the Blackburn Diocesan Synod this morning related to Urban Priority Area parishes - i.e. those with the greatest level of economic and social deprivation within cities and towns. The understandable concern was that the Church of England shouldn't withdraw its presence from those areas, as some other denominations have been forced to do.
My question was this: what does the presence of the good old C of E look like? All too often we can think it means the continuance of church services in the same way that we always did them in the same locations where we always held them. The problem is with the term 'withdrawal'. We risk getting into thinking of 'presence ' in a UPA that is more like the mentality of an occupying force than a missionary church.
What if parish ministry in some challenging UPAs was more like guerilla tactics than occupying army (I don't like military analogies either, but stay with me here) What about a parish without a parish church building? What if we just bought time at a multifaith centre (like many University Chaplaincies share prayer space)? What if 'presence' in a UPA parish didn't involve any of the usual ecclesiastical duties for the priest at all - ie no church building and perhaps even no Sunday worship? What if they were free just to get to know people and start meeting, prayer, gathering as and when it seemed appropriate?
As a University Chaplain, I knew that many colleagues had no church 'kit' to support them in their quest to be a presence. They had an office and a mandate to be around. What if we appointed priests in UPA parishes that couldn't afford buildings or parish share to do that? We might be more present in that form than we are where priests are holding services for a few people in a cold church that they can't afford.
It seems to me that the issue isn't about withdrawal vs staying; it's about our understanding of what being present might look like. I suspect the C of E isn't yet bold enough to make the sorts of decision that might effect that kind of culture shift, but we've got to start the thinking now.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uU-0qJOv_qtAvqF81ftohu-1J4yzDJKlpmPB2emhO5cBhJbjQnEYWnhz4jxFYF13UsvVPxP4__ox4vijWG-GKaBEfIawdexHes72uzY5D9lQUU1zy4xQWLxTqlfgs7QC6CP00kYytu_FwsYS1yRm_4=s0-d)
Church of England Synods are gathering of elected representatives from clergy and lay people, alog with some representative co-opted members. There are 3 levels: Deanery (local area, little power), Diocesan (whole Diocese), General (national for England).
One item on the Blackburn Diocesan Synod this morning related to Urban Priority Area parishes - i.e. those with the greatest level of economic and social deprivation within cities and towns. The understandable concern was that the Church of England shouldn't withdraw its presence from those areas, as some other denominations have been forced to do.
My question was this: what does the presence of the good old C of E look like? All too often we can think it means the continuance of church services in the same way that we always did them in the same locations where we always held them. The problem is with the term 'withdrawal'. We risk getting into thinking of 'presence ' in a UPA that is more like the mentality of an occupying force than a missionary church.
What if parish ministry in some challenging UPAs was more like guerilla tactics than occupying army (I don't like military analogies either, but stay with me here) What about a parish without a parish church building? What if we just bought time at a multifaith centre (like many University Chaplaincies share prayer space)? What if 'presence' in a UPA parish didn't involve any of the usual ecclesiastical duties for the priest at all - ie no church building and perhaps even no Sunday worship? What if they were free just to get to know people and start meeting, prayer, gathering as and when it seemed appropriate?
As a University Chaplain, I knew that many colleagues had no church 'kit' to support them in their quest to be a presence. They had an office and a mandate to be around. What if we appointed priests in UPA parishes that couldn't afford buildings or parish share to do that? We might be more present in that form than we are where priests are holding services for a few people in a cold church that they can't afford.
It seems to me that the issue isn't about withdrawal vs staying; it's about our understanding of what being present might look like. I suspect the C of E isn't yet bold enough to make the sorts of decision that might effect that kind of culture shift, but we've got to start the thinking now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)