'Districts' and 'District Rectors'

Posted: 29 August 2006, 18:14

In this article, originally published in the Autumn 2006 edition of the Diocesan Magazine, the Grapevine, the Bishop, John Mantle, explains his ideas and invites comments. If you would like to respond to what he has to say, please click on the 'Comments or Questions' link at the bottom of the article.

The Bishop writes:

Present Hopes

Across our Diocese and even to the most casual observer, we are blessed with some lovely little churches. In one location the church nestles on the hillside above a small coastal hamlet. In another the church is at the heart of a village, and in a third it's in a prominent position in the local town or burgh.

In many cases these churches hide an extraordinary secret. They may be the only church buildings remaining open where they are, one of the last signs, you might say, of the presence of the Christian faith! The other denominations - with perhaps more churches than the Episcopalians - have often had to pull out. The Scottish Episcopal Church may be all that remains!

But of course many of these little churches cannot possibly afford an incumbent of their own. So traditionally we speak of them as 'coming under' a larger church, or even being 'taken over' by the big church in the next town.

In towns or in the city we sometimes use a slightly different terminology; here we talk about 'linked charges', suggesting a kind of forced marriage, where the churches are told they 'have to work together' under the incumbent of one of them - usually the better-off church! This language is often unfair and unkind.

John Betjeman wrote a wonderful poem entitled, Blame it on the Vicar in which he describes a congregation grumbling about all its ministers. The church gets one new incumbent after another, none of them much loved or cared for by the people - until there's only one left - but;

. . .now he's left and they're alone, without a vicar of their own. The living's been amalgamated with one next door they always hated.

Changing our practices - and our language

Perhaps the time has come for us to look at the situation in a very different way. We need to face the difficulties that come with falling numbers of clergy and congregations. 'Amalgamations' - as John Betjeman put it - will have to continue, but we can make a better job of them and secure the future.

For decades, bishops (including the bishops of Brechin) have tried to secure a future by looking around for various non-stipendiary or post-retiral ministers to look after charges. Across the whole country many churches have been faithfully and responsibly served this way - especially in Brechin. Unfortunately we're now running out of such NSMs, and many retired clergy simply want to retire. And who can blame them?

I believe that a better way forward than struggling to find non-existent non-stipendiary clergy, or forcing charges to work together, is to try to help churches grow together in clusters but with as equal a status as possible. In our case perhaps, it would mean only two or three congregations. Churches within a cluster would, together, be able to pay a full-time stipendiary priest who would serve them all.

Rather than a forced 'amalgamation' then, the individual churches would:

It would notbe a question of a bigger church 'taking over' the little ones (simply because the bigger one had the financial resources). It would not mean that the incumbent had to live up at the 'big church' because it was the only one with a Rectory. And it would not mean that the incumbent spent most of his or her time 'up there' while treating the smaller congregations as a 'dependent'

The Rector would be a District Rector, with responsibility for a wide geographical area which would effectively be his or her 'parish'. All Episcopalians and Anglicans in it would be his or her parishioners, but there would, by definition, be more than one worship-centre.

So we need to grow good 'district clusters' and train good 'District Rectors'. It would not mean that some individual charges couldn't have a resident NSM or post-retiral ministry. Such individuals would be colleagues to the District Rector. But the District Rector would be in charge with all the responsibilities that that entailed, and with it, a leadership role. In short, it is about a new kind of Rector exercising a new kind of ministry in a new kind of district.

How would it work?

The District Rector would be in every church every Sunday, normally presiding or preaching at the Eucharist, and making himself/herself known to members of the congregations. He or she would not be looking for an opportunity to 'offload' this on another local NSM even where these existed.

So far (and to those in the know) this ought to sound very different to what's been happening in the recent past. This needs to be about real change. A change in attitude, practice, the theology of ministry, and the language we use.

And we'd still need our lay ministries. In fact they'd remain an essential feature of the scheme! With a good local 'collaborative' ministry much of the hands-on work both pastorally and liturgically can be done by NSMs. This would leave a District Rector to get on with the difficult and taxing pastoral oversight of all the congregations in the cluster.

How do we set about this?

It's important to decide what churches can remain on their won, and what churches and congregations ought to be put into little clusters. To do this I will be seeking advice not only from the clergy themselves, but also from the Administration and Mission Boards. I would also enlist the help of anew Bishop's Pastoral Advisory Group. This will be a group made up of (mainly) Young professional people who I hope - with a fresh approach - can help us to think through these difficult issues.

But before any proposals were adopted and became policy, they would have to be taken to each and every congregation across the diocese. Only when there was general consensus would anything like a policy be established, and, even when it couldn't be implemented immediately (and that might be most of the time!) we'd hope that the parishes could live and work towards that agreed future.

In the years that follow, and especially where new schemes cannot be implemented sooner, I would nevertheless hope that some congregations could annually re-visit a locally devised scheme, acknowledge that they still believe in it, and ready to to join it should the opportunity present itself. This way we have a real policy - thought through and agreed upon, ready for implementation.

But these are simply ideas that need to be discussed and shaped in the months to come. There is still, of course, a good deal of thinking to be done; and I'm particularly interested in hearing your views.