Episcope for beginners

Category: Uncategorized

  • Grown up politics

    It was very good this afternoon seeing our politicians behaving like adults in the Ukraine statement and debatein parliament. Now we want to call Trump’s bluff and see what a peace deal he can broker with Putin – and Zelensky.

  • Daily writing prompt
    Tell us about your favorite pair of shoes, and where they’ve taken you.
    View all responses

  • The debate continues

    Delighted that the Church Times daily posting is featuring my article today about the need to reform the way the Church of England appoints bishops. People are asking, what are they for in a participative Church? Do hierarchies need to end? Have the ‘sheep’ lost confidence in the Shepherds?

  • My February 14th Valentine Article in the Church Times

    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.

    The time has come to take a closer look at the reasons for this. There are immediate and practical reasons for the discomfort with many of the people in senior leadership positions. More fundamentally, there are underlying reasons that demonstrate the need for theological underpinning of how the office and work of a bishop is understood. Unless these concerns are addressed, the Church of England will lose its respected place among the community of episcopal Churches.

    It is necessary to reform the less-than-satisfactory methods by which clergy are considered and then selected for all episcopal ministries. More transparency could give a greater sense of ownership by the local church and diocese. In her 2001 report on choosing diocesan bishops, Baroness Perry pointed out that, at the time, 89 per cent of recently appointed diocesan bishops were already in episcopal orders. The feeder group of suffragans are selected by their diocesan bishops.

    This has the appearance of a closed system. In 2014, Lord Green, a former group chairman of HSBC, suggested a “talent pool” of those who might be considered for episcopal ministry and given appropriate training and preparation. Some progress has been made, but confidence remains low.

    There are examples of different appointment methods which need to be considered. In Finland and Sweden, there are open elections in the vacant diocese. In the Church in Wales, bishops are elected by an electoral college made up of six members elected by each diocese, three lay members and three clergy, and 12 members elected by the diocese to which the bishop is being elected. In the Episcopal Church in the United States, bishops are elected by the diocesan convention. No system could be transplanted into the Church of England directly, but the principle of open and transparent election cannot be ignored.

    Behind all the practicalities of appointment, there is a need to look again at the core nature of episcopal ministry. What are bishops for? We know about the origins of the word episkopos. From its original use for a superintendent in the Athenian Empire, it was adopted by the Early Church. The task and ministry envisaged was to “see over” congregations, grouped into what would become a diocese. A bishop in synod is still where the Church is in its fullest manifestation. My own reciprocal redefinition is “watching over one another in community”.

    It is clear from this early understanding that a bishop is not a managing director and not even the project initiator and leader of a diocese. We know that the model of shepherd was an early concept, and remains the principal image in all consecration services. We know, also, but appear to have forgotten, that the document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, agreed at a 1982 meeting of the World Council of Churches in Lima, says that all positions of responsibility need to arise from our common life in the body of Christ, that bishops should be aware of the apostolic tradition that has called them, and that they should be a focus for unity, a fundamental requirement that appears to have delayed some recent appointments.

    Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry also says that the episcopal ministries are exercised individually, collegially, and communally. Those newly appointed to these ministries need to understand how this balance can be worked out. The present feeder system appears to prioritise individualism. Missioners and evangelism specialists become bishops with attitudes already formed. Synod performers and ecclesiastical networkers are preferred over theologians or experienced parish clergy. Driven by party allegiance, our bishops have formed themselves into ecclesiastical elites, unaccountable and distant.

    It is an understanding of our Anglican theology and heritage which needs to be evident in future appointment processes. Those involved in selection need to be looking for different qualities in our bishops. Once they are in post, compulsory in-service training and mentoring need to be a requirement. The pressures of office have a noticeable effect on personality. There are ways in which those appointed can be pulled back from temptations towards autocracy. It was the theologian Paul Tillich who said that hubris — wanting to be like God — was the greatest sin.

    With a renewed confidence in the appointments system, with supportive theological mentoring, and repeated challenging in their synods, our bishops can come closer to their people and demonstrate a more Christlike form of ministry. As an immediate practical step to show a certain amount of penitence, all bishops could abandon their beloved purple shirts — and not just for Lent.

    The Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy is a former Archdeacon of Craven and founding director of the Foundation for Church Leadership. His books include Leadership and Oversight: New models for episcopal ministry (Mowbray/Continuum, 2011) (Books, 9 December 2011).

  • A balanced view of parish versus project

    Present in Every Place? The Church of England’s New Churches, and the Future of the Parish. Will Foulger, SCM, 2023, pp. xvi, 117.

    978-0-334-06203-5 paperback. Also available as an ebook.

    This timely and well-researched book examines the tensions between supporters of the parish ministry and those who have developed new patterns of congregation-building. Without taking sides, but by including his own research journey Will Foulger examines the current literature and adds his own objective interpretation. Foulger is Director of Mission and Evangelism at Cranmer Hall Theological College in Durham and Director of the Centre for Church Planting Theology and Research. As such he is one of the best placed people to offer such an analysis.

    Instead of beginning by describing each argument and its defence Foulger very wisely choses other criteria by which to conduct an analysis of the virtues or otherwise of the situation in which the Church of England and its leadership now find themselves. The examination is set out in only four chapters, but the Preface, Introduction and Postscript have substance and    give seven distinct contributions. In the first principal chapter, Foulger introduces a discussion of place, saying that it is the places we inhabit, or have inhabited, which shape us. Using a definition from the human geographer Geoff Malpas and drawing much on the seminal theological work of John Inge, he calls place ‘bounded openness.’

    From this he then explores space which he says is a concept full of choice and unlimited possibility. It is the limitedness of the parish system which its critics find a problem. Those who want more freedom of liturgical expression and want to break away from traditional Church of England worship and engagement styles find this mindset attractive. It is what has produced a new generation of Pioneer Ministers with their specialised theological and mission training.

    Foulger’s second chapter then goes to the debate. He explores the history and ecclesiological defence of parish and local settled congregations. This forms the focus of his title, asking why and if the Church of England should have a parochial presence in every community. In this he is honest about the effectiveness or otherwise of some parochial work. He sources those who have charted an over resourced rural ministry which was then slow to react to population movements as the industrial revolution exploded. Strangely, he seems unaware of the foundational work of Ted Wickham in Sheffield on this subject. Place is strong here, tinged with fantasised nostalgia. There is no discussion of how rural ministry might be sustained or developed for the future and an acknowledgement that many solutions are urban or suburban in nature.

    Only then is all this all set alongside the work arising from the 2004 report Mission Shaped Church and the subsequent outworking as Fresh Expressions. It is this movement which has spawned new congregations, creative church growth and church planting. Wisely, after a well-evidenced debate he concludes that this movement can be seen as an over-reaction towards space, experiment, and non-parochial innovation. He has also observed an equal over-correction in defence of the local parish which when it works well can be very effective but when it does not may plead for a partnership of experiment with grounded presence. In each case Foulger’s judgement is that, grafted or planted, effectiveness can only be judged by the earned local social capital which a Christian presence creates.

    Fundamental to Foulger’s analysis is his third chapter. It reminds protagonists and defenders of any established position that the places in which Christians and local churches operate are not the places they used to be. Social and economic change require emerging solutions. He says that that we have a God who is always there, with or without us and that we are a church of disciples who in the same image are always ‘becoming’ (p.80). In a time of clergy shortage and increasing lay responsibility he emphasises that collegiality and not isolated individualism is the way forward.

    There is an honesty which runs throughout the book about Foulger’s own journey. He has conducted some of his early research in Nottingham and now draws much of his own grounded experience from the Northeast and the Durham which he says is known by many residents not for its cathedral but for the diverse ways in which it has restored itself after the collapse of the mining industry. He says in the Introduction that he set out in his initial research with the intention of defending new churches against their critics. He then found that, as his research continued, he began agreeing with the premises of many of those critics. This questioning honesty led him to the examination of sources, local practice and theological justification which have resulted in this short but immensely valuable book. It reveals a Church of England which continues to be changed as this innovative but tension-filled discussion continues. Will Foulger’s book is an important contribution to a debate which needs to be well-informed and which has many more miles yet to travel.

  • The Save the Parish Debate

    The Once and Future Parish, Alison Milbank, SCM Press, 2023, pp. xxiv, 194. Paperback. ISBN 978-0-334-06313-1.

    This book makes the case for a revitalised parish ministry. Its author is unhappy about the centralising policies of the Church of England at diocesan and national level and criticises the balance of investment by the Church Commissioners where untried projects are favoured against investment in parishes and the clergy who serve them. Alison Millbank is Professor of Theology and Literature at the University of Nottingham. She is also Canon Theologian and Priest Vicar at Southwell Minster. This book is written as a follow-up to that by Alison Milbank and Andrew Davison, For the Parish published twelve years ago which influenced and inspired what has become the ‘Save the Parish’ movement.

    Alongside her critical commentary on the many recent Church of England reports and innovative initiatives in the sphere of evangelism, Millbank includes tremendously encouraging accounts of what can be achieved in lively Anglican parishes with dedicated congregations and committed local clergy. Her title is taken, for those who remember, from the initiator of support and research into parish ministry, Lauren Mead of the Alban Institute with his book The once and future Church. She refers equally strongly to the Arthurian Legend parallel of a ‘once and future king’ and his return when need became great. This is given its modern interpretation with a frontispiece cover of a painting by the Glasgow artist Peter Howson. It gives the book its central theme, that especially amid crises and in times of great human need basic inherited human and spiritual values become beacons of hope. Her argument is that we have a dearth of moral leadership in many parts of the world. One reason in England for this she says is that the once national church has retreated from being the church which is for everyone towards becoming a grouping of gathered communities with increasingly sectarian characteristics.

    In eight carefully researched chapters Millbank sets out the case for a renewal of locally based parish ministry. She charts the change in allocation of resources away form the parish, the increased centralisation of leadership, a depletion in the numbers of stipendiary clergy and the increase in diocesan and national posts. She explores the changes in emphasis in mission, an unhelpful umbrella term, the lack of theological and liturgical education in ministerial training and continuing formation, the changed understanding of the role of bishop and the very different paths to appointment culminating in a leadership not adequately formed in Anglican traditions and in the main without academic theological backgrounds. She laments the lack of use of retired clergy as a theological and liturgical training resource.

    Most helpfully for readers of this journal Millbank exposes the lack of support for rural parishes. She explains how most do not qualify, even with changed terms, for the generous central funding handouts. She applauds small congregations of the faithful who raise enormous amounts to maintain their buildings. In urban as well as rural areas she describes a laity who feel more abandoned by their church than ‘liberated’ to engage in ministry in the world. It is perhaps unfortunate that Millbank does not give research details of the Church in Wales where she says abandoning the parish for other structures has resulted in steeper decline.

    This is an unashamedly partisan book which sets out to defend a parochial system which has been put under threat. There is some hyperbole and hints of a memory that things were better before. She does not defend the Book of Common Prayer uncritically. Interestingly she says that if the reforms of the 1928 book had been passed by Parliament, then a continuing gradual programme of liturgical revision might have been carried out. It is the ‘spirit’ of the BCP which she applauds with its inclusive emphasis as something which the devout lay person could use and know that others were also a part of ‘the blessed company of all faithful people’.

    The overall argument is that those who have been appointed wholly now internally by the Church of England and a majority who populate its General Synod and its committees have developed policies which demonstrate little or no understanding of the faith and traditions which have formed their church and have opted for a mistaken emphasis on non-parochial solutions.  While placing considerable responsibility for this on those the system has appointed as bishops. She makes an attractive argument for what is called ‘virtuous hierarchy’. It is a concept worth further development. In this more collegial idea she says the gap between clergy, laity and their bishop could be lessened while retaining the need for hierarchy and boundaries for faith as well as behaviour. She argues for a greater role for local laity and clergy in the appointment of their bishop resulting in a greater attention to its core activities and a lessening of often ill-informed public pronouncements. With this rebalancing she sees a renewed role for the archdeacon and Rural/Area Dean as those more obviously sharing in a mutually acknowledged task of oversight.

    The cover of this book announces it as, ‘Perhaps the most important book written about the Church of England in recent times’. It is hardly that but does make public in a well-researched way the changes in a church which is now giving a confusing message about its priorities. Millbank says that it is possible for an academic to set out this case more independently than those inside the institution, hampered by the fear of exclusion or lack of preferment. Our university theological departments, themselves under threat in many places, can be applauded in this case for speaking out in defence of the parochial ministry still the valued sustainer of local life, values and community.

    This Review first appeared in the Journal ‘Rural Theology’

  • Unforgiveable: A fascinating and challenging book

    Unforgiveable?: Exploring the Limits of Forgiveness, Stephen Cherry, Bloomsbury Continuum, 2024. pp xvii, 222. ISBN 978-1-3994-0132-6 hardback, eBook 978-1- 3994- 0131-9, ePDF 978-1-3994- 0131-2.

    It is unusual for a book to begin with a warning to readers but that is just what Stephen Cherry does. Because his subject is the aftermath of serious, traumatic and life-changing harm done to individuals the content and discussion may be disturbing and to some, offensive. Whether or not some harmed and damaged people can ever forgive, and in what way is the subject of Cherry’s question mark titled book. Stephen Cherry, now Dean of King’s College, Cambridge is an authority in this wide-ranging and sometimes unfathomable subject. His previous books and his personal qualifications in psychology equip him well for this task.

    Equally unusually Cherry’s opening is a dialogue with himself about the content and possible shortcomings or inadequacies of his previous books. He does this by writing a series of letters to himself from imagined individuals. He then begins what is a continuing and multi-disciplined dialogue about the possibilities for forgiveness. Alongside psychological and philosophical dialogue about forgiveness Cherry has the Christian tradition as a challenging theme throughout. All this, as Cherry says early in his book is because he wants to ask if we as Christians have a ‘faulty doctrine of forgiveness’ and if so, what harm has it caused as different approaches have been tried.

    He looks in some depth at the reconciliation ministry of Desmond Tutu and the work which he influenced strongly as Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. Cherry provides a significant critique of Justin Welby’s own approach and writings on forgiveness. He is also helpful in examining from many aspects how survivors feel and how they explain what, if at all they mean by forgiveness. He instances many with their own stories and testimonies who say that unilaterally they can forgive those who have done much harm to them. He is critical of Christianity, especially as practiced by some in the United States when they say they forgive those who harm them without any direct contact or understanding of the situation of the person they are forgiving. It is important to remember that the title of the book, with its question mark, is ‘Unforgiveable?’.

    The chapters on Jesus and forgiveness are important as is the one about Jewish approaches to forgiveness. Challenging the all too prevalent assumption that one of the main platforms of Christianity is unconditional forgiveness Cherry looks at the actual sayings of Jesus on the subject. In St Mark’s gospel the few references are primarily about God’s forgiveness. There is only one mention in St John. Even this invites controversy, ‘If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (20:23). He points out that the Greek word – aphiemi – is not usually translated as ‘forgive’ but ‘to let go’, ‘liberate’ or ‘release’. Unlike the current Christian emphasis on ‘forgiveness’ there are far more instances of the verb than the noun. Cherry also reinterprets the ‘seventy times seven passage in Matthew (18:22) and the similar one in Luke (17:3-4), the forgiveness passage in the Lord’s Prayer and the ‘Father forgive them’ last words of Jesus from the cross. He concludes the chapter with his dismissal that, ‘the myth of Christian forgiveness as something that is always possible and always good’ saying that ‘The reality is . . . that there really are limits to the possibilities of forgiveness for every human being, and that recognising these limits is fundamentally important to respecting and supporting those who have been harmed’ (p.122).

    This book was probably written before the outbreak of the current hostilities in Gaza. Cherry examines the Jewish attitude to forgiveness and instances at some length the work of Simon Wiesenthal in his pursuit of Nazi persecutors and the illustration given by Wiesenthal in his book ‘Sunflowers.’ Here, when a dying persecutor wants him to forgive, he listens but then walks away in silence. While agreeing with Wiesenthal’s action, Cherry then goes on to instance Rabbi Abraham Heschel, that you can only offer forgiveness to those who are still alive. Later he references the prayers at Yom Kippur that when the victim is dead there can be no forgiveness (p. 98). In contrast Cherry says that on the Forgiveness Project website post-mortem forgiveness is one of the largest discussion categories. There is a necessary review of the frequency of mentions of our unworthiness and the need for forgiveness in Anglican liturgies and especially in the Book of Common Prayer. This opens up the whole question of confession, repentance and absolution and what ‘absolution’ is meant to do.

    The memorable thrust of this book is not about how the people of any faith offer forgiveness but about the lasting effect of damage and abuse on those who are harmed. This is the content of the letters Cherry writes to himself from ‘survivors’ – itself an important and emotive word. Cherry’s wide experience comes into play particularly in the discussion of objections to blanket forgiveness. He is acutely sensitive to the perpetrator receiving forgiveness and this takes the reader deep into the continuing suffering of victims who are also survivors. They want to explore how to live with integrity and faithfully with the aftermath of harm. The book then goes on in depth with an analysis of how on any side victims and perpetrators can move forward. Issues of repentance and what is means to say ‘sorry’ take the reader to a new place. In doing this he includes many references in literature where an author offers their own interpretations of forgiveness through the dialogue of their characters

    The inhibition at the beginning of this book is well justified. It goes in depth to difficult and painful places for many. It does explore forgiveness but makes no attempt to offer one comprehensive and satisfying answer. He does examine with analytic thoroughness whether the Christian churches have got their traditional and many current approaches wrong. Cherry helps the reader in this by his own dialogue with himself through the imagined objectors and responders to his writing. He then proposes the concept of ‘non-vengeful unforgiveness . . . an in-between or liminal space’ This he says is a space between full forgiveness and vengefulness and is a space which does not desire revenge and has no hatred but is without a victim’s forgiveness for the perpetrator (p.186). Stephen Cherry has produced a landmark book primarily through this challenging refocussing. It is one which should be essential reading in other professions as well as for those within the churches engaged in theological, teaching or pastoral ministries.

  • 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.