Changing the Church we Love

Creating a credible future for the Church of England

Malcolm Grundy

One of the joys of a generous number of years in retirement is to be able to gain a perspective on the church you have loved and tried to serve. I was ordained priest in 1970. The Church of England today is far different from the one in which my ministry was begun. A deeper sense of divisiveness is concerning, and retirement distance can contribute to analysis rather than feed disappointment or resentment. Now is the time to dream dreams and to map out the areas where change and reform are needed.

It is the much missed and influential laywoman Elizabeth Templeton who reminded us often that the church, though divinely inspired, is a human institution. Others have said that Christians are no more than ordinary people trying to be good. It is that human frailty which has come into prominence with recent controversies, and which demands that we look again at our church and the ways in which it is governed. Fortunately, we have as our perpetual guide the inspiration which is derived from the life, death and continued resurrection presence of Jesus. It is the God rooted spirituality which many still find attractive amid all the disillusion, misinformation and internal party strife. A Lenten time of self-examination before new appointments are made and new strategies devised is appropriate.

We are in a changed church, which seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to achieve internal resolution concerning its safeguarding dilemmas. There has become an increasing gap between local parish ministry and specially funded evangelistic appointments. The actions and decisions of our bishops are being challenged on a number of fronts. The ministry of women is making an increasing contribution, yet this has yet to be analysed and assessed. We are in a church which has failed to be representative in its leadership of the multi-ethnic makeup of its membership. Most significantly, we are at a time when our ecumenical and faith partners need a more collaborative voice in the affairs of our nation. It is good to know that a debate is being begun by members of the Anglican communion about how it is to be held together. Each of these concerns need to be owned and progressed further before the ‘job description’ for a new Canterbury appointment is considered. It all adds up to a time of ‘crisis’ or judgement.

Bishops

I rather like a piece of Anglican wisdom which recommends a high view of episcopacy and a low view of bishops. There can be little doubt that the public standing of bishops has been damaged by recent policies and controversies. Equally, many congregations and clergy feel a growing distance between themselves and their senior diocesan teams, though there will always be exceptions. To demonstrate a certain amount of penitence, why not ask all bishops to cease wearing the episcopal purple – and not just for Lent. The same would go for piping on the cassocks of other dignitaries.

It is necessary and with some urgency to reform the less than satisfactory methods by which clergy are considered and then selected for all episcopal ministries. I have said often that the Archbishops’ Appointments Secretary is no more than a ‘club secretary’ putting names forward only on the recommendation of the existing members! Equally, the time is long overdue for a comprehensive review about the way in which diocesan bishops are appointed. In both instances more transparency could give a greater sense of ownership by the local church and diocese. There are Provinces where a form of nomination by clergy and laity takes place. Existing bishops then agree that they would consecrate the recommended candidate. Another way would be an agreed short list after wide consultation and then election by a diocese.

We are at a time when our ecumenical partners and faith leaders need a more collaborative voice in the affairs of our nation. A reform of the presence and number of bishops in the House of Lords is long overdue. Working with appropriate parliamentary committees, and with the consent of the Crown, bishops might volunteer to surrender their privileged position. In their place could be an agreed number of seats for Christian and other faith leaders. Selection, length of tenure and appointment would have to be by negotiated mutual agreement.

Synods

I have participated in synods at all levels throughout the 55 years of my ministry. Experience gained demonstrates to me that reports, reforms and even accepted proposals can all too easily get watered down and even buried. The Church of England is an equal to any other in implementing the ‘Sir Humphrey effect’. At a national level synodical government has failed to deliver its early promise. Experience suggests that it has increased polarisation and enabled the creation of a platform for party groups in the life of the church. There has to be serious revision to the present model of government led by a reformed and reconstituted Archbishops’ Council.

A national synod needs to meet less often and in a different form. It would then address only major doctrinal and policy issues as did the Councils so influential in our ecclesial history and significant today in the ground-breaking Vatican II. The place where the church really comes into its own is with the local bishop(s), their clergy and people in synod. Diocesan synods should continue but each bishop should be required make an annual report about their activities and be open to questions.

Parishes

There would be an immediate pause in spending on further projects by the Church Commissioners through the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board. A rebalancing of investment into the parochial system has to be seen to take place in order to renew confidence locally grouped parishes their priests. A reformed selection and training programme would equip a larger number of priests for differing roles within large parish groupings. Some new theological and ministerial models require development. The ‘episcopal vicar’ as the team leader could be a newly created role. In small, largely rural areas the deanery and its rural/area dean would take this on.

There is an emerging feeling that the proportion of diocesan staff and special project members to parochial appointments has gone awry. According to Col Everett of Save the Parish, on average across the dioceses there is one administrator or diocesan official for every three and a half clergy posts. There needs to be a negotiated national cap on the proportion of one to the other. In a similar way, the proportion senior staff and those who work alongside the diocesan and Area Bishops needs to be revisited. In some situations, merging the roles and responsibilities of archdeacons and area and suffragan bishops might be considered.

It has been suggested to me by retired chaplain colleagues that if our denomination is genuinely seeking to reset its place in the minds and hearts of the nation, alongside the newly created evangelical outreach posts there are partner networks providing a wider vision beyond the focus of the parish. Community Chaplains, Town Chaplains, Police and Emergency Services Chaplains, Chaplains to business, commerce and industry – to farmers and their communities – all have their part to play. Rooted alongside parishes, perhaps as part of a group or team ministry, recounting in their sermons the people and issues they have encountered, they can encourage congregations to look beyond inward-focussed targets. We might do well to note that the ministry of Jesus was lived largely outside religious communities and spaces.

Governance

Has the Church of England earned the right to govern itself without external oversight? It may not be right at this time to end ours being a state church. Selection of the appropriate kind of bishops to take faith development to a new place may need to have the Crown and parliament as partners. Similarly, it might not be right at this time to end private patronage of parishes. For the foreseeable future there should continue be external accountability to monitor what those in power are doing. It would be a way of keeping in place the ‘checks and balances’ essential in any constitution. It is often the case that others can see what we need more clearly than we can see ourselves.

We need to begin a cultural change within the Church of England. Pressure groups and critical individuals have already made much noise. Before the discussions begin about a new Archbishop of Canterbury those making the choice need to be aware of what will be needed in a church which has signalled the need for significand cultural and organisational change. Who makes senior appointments and who controls and allocates resources are key factors in all this. The acknowledgement of failings and a willingness to consider change has the potential for our church to gain respect and to regain a place of influence in the public arena.

There is then much to be said for retired clergy with the perspective of experience offering objective and sometimes radical solutions without the fear of receiving the full thrust of the Church of England’s well practiced methods of marginalisation. Without our pastoral work and Sunday duty service taking the institution would collapse even more rapidly. It is only sensible to make these unusually bold proposals in the hope that opinion can be influenced and some progress made. This article aims to contribute to a debate which might influence a culture and ultimately to bring about incremental but radical change.

Canon Dr Malcolm Grundy is an author, former archdeacon and synod member whose final post was as Director of the Foundation for Church Leadership. He is the author of Leadership and Oversight: New models for episcopal ministry, Mowbray/Continuum, 2011.

January 2025.