A Measure for Measures In Mission and Ministry

By Julia Watson,2014-08-08 20:30
13 views 0
A Measure for Measures In Mission and Ministry

    A Measure for Measures: In Mission and Ministry

    Report of the Review of the Dioceses, Pastoral

    and related Measures

    GS 1528


Church House Publishing

    Church House

    Great Smith Street

    London SW1P 3NZ

ISBN 0 7151 4029 9

GS 1528

Published 2004 for the Archbishops’ Council by Church House Publishing.

Copyright ? The Archbishops’ Council 2004.

    All rights reserved. Diocesan offices and national and local heritage bodies have permission to reproduce this publication in part or in its entirety for local use, provided the copies include the above copyright notice and no charge is made for them. Any other reproduction in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system without written permission which should be sought from the Copyright Administrator, Church House Publishing, Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3NZ (Tel: 020 7898 1594; Fax: 020 7898 1449; Email:

Printed in England by Halstan & Co Ltd, Amersham, Bucks



Terms of Reference

    Chairman’s Introduction

Chapter 1: Facilitating the Church’s Mission and Ministry:

    Background and Proposals

1.01 Nature of the challenge

    1.07 Scope of the review

    1.09 Our approach

    1.13 Our proposals

     - Dioceses

     - Neighbourhood and network

     - Church buildings

Chapter 2: Dioceses

2.01 Background

     2.04 The Dioceses Measure 1978

     2.09 Use of the Measure since 1978 2.16 Proposals for the Future

     2.20 Duties and Responsibilities of Suffragan Bishops

     2.23 A Pro-active Central Body

     2.29 Proposals for Amendment of Schemes

     2.31 Delay of Nomination to Diocesan Sees

     2.32 Shared Administration

     2.34 Vacancies in Suffragan Sees

     2.38 Sharing of Suffragan and Assistant Bishops

     2.40 Names of Sees

     2.41 Archdeaconries

Chapter 3: Neighbourhood and Network: Mission, Ministry and


3.01 The Pastoral Measure 1983

     3.05 Purpose and policy context

     3.07 Statutory diocesan plans?

    3.09 Use of the Measure

     3.09 Current provisions

     3.10 How they have been used

     3.12 Recent trends

    3.14 Church and Mission Models

     3.17 Potential and limitations of existing provisions

     3.21 Case studies of fresh expressions of church

     3.22 „Mixed economy‟ church

    3.26 Mission Initiatives

     3.28 Definition and scope

     3.30 Procedure for creating, renewing or terminating mission initiatives

     3.32 Appointments


     3.33 Governance and representation

     3.34 Funds and property

     3.35 Integration with existing structures

     Ministry arrangements

    3.37 Teams and Groups

     3.40 Group Ministries

     3.41 Team Ministries

     3.42 Operation of teams and groups

     3.44 Interim provisions for representation of the laity

     3.46 Representation of team members on team ministry patronage boards

     3.47 Appointment of team vicars

     3.48 Team ministries as corporate bodies?

     3.49 Ecumenical involvement in teams and groups 3.50 Deployment of Non-Stipendiaries

    3.53 Recognising other forms of collaborative ministry

    3.54 Suspension of Presentation

     3.54 Current Provisions

     3.56 Grounds for suspension of presentation

     3.59 Appointments of priests-in-charge

3.60 Parsonages

     3.60 Freehold of benefice property

     3.62 Overlap and conflict between the Pastoral and Parsonages Measures

     3.64 Scope for change

    3.68 Compensation of clergy


    3.72 Initiating Change

     3.72 Appointment and role of Diocesan Pastoral Committee

     3.74 Archdeaconry or deanery pastoral sub committees? 3.77 Orders and schemes

    3.88 Consultation process

     3.80 Statutory interested parties

     3.81 Consultation stages

     3.84 Drafting and publishing schemes and non-shortened procedure orders

     3.86 Making schemes

     3.87 Effects of our proposals on the consultation process

     3.88 Dealing with representations and the appellate function

     3.90 Role of the Privy Council

     3.92 Section 14 (Shortened Procedure)

3.93 Related Legislation

     3.94 New Parishes Measure 1943

     3.96 Extra Parochial Ministry Measure 1967

     3.97 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993

     3.98 Legislation as to the Faculty Jurisdiction

3.99 Central role


Chapter 4: Church Buildings

4.01 Background

     Churches in Use

    4.04 The role of church buildings

    4.06 The provision of church buildings

    4.08 Facilitating extended use of church buildings 4.14 Facilitating strategic reviews of church building needs

     Churches no longer required for public worship 4.16 Redundancy trends

    4.20 Terminology and available options

    4.21 Mothballing

    4.24 Diocesan bodies and the allocation of functions

     4.25 Rationalising the diocesan committee infrastructure

    4.29 Advisory function

     4.30 Current Arrangements

     4.32 Single central advisory role? 4.36 Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure: proposed changes

    4.37 Identical treatment for unlisted buildings?

    4.38 Use seeking period

     4.38 Length: maximum and minimum

     4.42 Use seeking: care and maintenance

     4.45 Use seeking: process

    4.47 Where a use is found

    4.49 Where a use is not found

    4.51 Preservation (by the Churches Conservation Trust)

     4.53 Constitution and appointment of Trustees

     4.54 Powers of the CCT

     4.58 Financing the CCT

    4.60 Demolition

    4.63 One Stage Procedure

     4.64 Section 46 replacement schemes

     4.65 Section 47 schemes


    4.67 Structure of the Measure

    4.68 Declaring a church redundant

     4.68 Initiating redundancy

     4.71 Churches closed prior to the Pastoral Measure

     4.72 Proposals for the future: Pastoral schemes involving redundancy

     4.74 Two-stage process

     Disposal of churches closed for worship

    4.77 Contents

     4.77 Contents in the use seeking period

     4.78 Disposal of contents

    4.83 Dealing with human remains, tombstones, monuments and memorials

    4.85 Covenants and residual interest following disposal 4.89 Lease cases

4.90 Central role


Chapter 5: Proposed Central functions

     - Dioceses

     - Neighbourhood and Network

     - Church Buildings

    5.02 Location of Central Functions

     5.08 Human Rights Act considerations

     5.16 The central body for Dioceses work

     5.21 The central body for Neighbourhood, Network and Church Buildings

Chapter 6: General

6.01 Structure of the Legislation

     6.01 General

     6.02 Pastoral Measure

     6.05 Future amendments

     6.06 Education and guidance

    6.07 Financial Issues

     6.07 Dioceses

     6.08 Neighbourhood, network and church buildings

Summary list of recommendations

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Whose Church? Which Culture?: Discerning the Missionary Structures for

     Tomorrow. The Revd Dr Malcolm Brown

    Appendix 2: Membership of the Review group

    Appendix 3: Bodies and individuals who provided evidence to the Review Appendix 4: Statistical Overview: 2001

    Appendix 5: Pastoral reorganisation a background note

    Appendix 6: Parsonages a background note

    Appendix 7: Redundant churches a background note

    Appendix 8: Abbreviations

List of Tables

Table 1(a): Benefices, parishes, churches and full-time clergy (1969 and 2001)

    Table 1(b): Trends in benefices, parishes, churches and full-time clergy (1969-2001)

    Table 1(c): Ratio of churches, benefices and parishes to full-time clergy (1969-2001)

    Table 2(a) : Example of a deanery based team ministry Table 2(b): Benefice comprising non-contiguous areas Table 2(c): Parish of detached parts

    Table 3: Consultation response on features of mission initiatives: Q7: „Please indicate the

     extent to which you regard the following as essential or desirable features.‟

    Table 4: Number of team ministries created, varied and dissolved (1984 2002)

    Table 5: Summary of procedure for Pastoral Schemes and Orders Table 6: Objections by source (1984-2002)

    Table 7: Outcomes of pastoral reorganisation objection cases (1984-2002) Table 8: Number of redundancies since 1969

    Table 9: Settling the future of redundant churches (1969-2002) Table 10: Alternative uses by type (1969-2002)


    Terms of Reference

    The Review of the Dioceses and Pastoral and related Measures Working Group was appointed by the Archbishops‟ Council at the end of 2000 with the following terms of reference:

    “to review in consultation with the dioceses, the Church Commissioners, the

    Dioceses Commission and other interested parties the provisions and operation of

    the Dioceses Measure 1978, the Pastoral Measure 1983, the Team and Group

    Ministries Measure 1995 and related Measures, in order to ensure flexible and cost-

    effective procedures which fully meet changing pastoral and mission needs, and to

    report, with recommendations, to the Archbishops‟ Council by the summer of




    ….. for the future take us

Inspired by the line “Past put behind us, for the future take us” in Timothy Dudley-Smith‟s

    great hymn „Lord for the Years‟, the temptation in reviewing the Dioceses, Pastoral and related Measures might so easily have been to set them all aside and start afresh by considering „the future‟ alone.

    We might even have penned a new following line for the hymn verse: „They‟re all the past, so let‟s forget them all!‟

    It was, of course, clear from the outset, as the recently-published Cray Report „Mission

    Shaped Church‟ put it, that “we all live in a fast-changing world. As the Church of England

    aims to be a church for everyone in the country…the Church needs to respond to the

    1changes in our culture” and “The sheer variety of fresh expressions of church has been a welcome sign of continued spiritual creativity in the context of a rapidly changing mission

    2climate”. Our primary challenge, therefore, was to determine what legislative framework might best facilitate the Church‟s response for the future; enabling speedy and flexible responsiveness yet ensuring reasonable good order and accountability.

    We consulted widely in order to ascertain the extent to which our „past‟ Measures

    remained „fit for purpose‟ for the future; unsurprisingly, perhaps, a wide range of opinion was received - from „Leave well alone, the Measures serve us adequately‟, through „make significant change, the Measures need serious amendment‟, to the „past put behind us‟ model „begin afresh, we need a new, simpler, and far more radically enabling Measure‟. There were also many who professed ignorance about the Measures, but the majority view was abundantly clear: „the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater‟, but significant change was needed, coupled with far greater „lightness of touch‟ and flexibility to suit differing „local‟ needs and new ways of being Church.

    We were determined that our decisions and recommendations should be rooted in an ecclesiological understanding of the issues involved. We were greatly indebted therefore to the Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown, our theological consultant, for his constant advice and encouragement. His observations permeate and punctuate our Report, and his reminder that “… sometimes, to do familiar things in a changing context is to do something radically new” became a constant guide in our deliberations. Above all, however, it was his advice that “It is the theology of oversight or, episcope which binds the body together”, that “the

    diocese is a very visible expression of Anglican ecclesiology”, and that “the diocese is an essential tool of mission” that led us to consider the possibility of greater empowerment and

    devolved authority for the Dioceses in matters pastoral. We concluded that „for the future‟, one size will not fit all, and that although Dioceses are best placed to determine what might be the „best fit‟ for their particular mission and ministry needs, a simpler and enabling

    national legislative framework is still needed.

1 Cray Report (The report of the Breaking New Ground 2 Working Party), Chapter 1 2 Cray Report, Chapter 2


It is, however, „the past‟ that has produced our present map of Dioceses – a map that self-

    evidently bears little resemblance to the reality of the present distribution, structure and mobility of population. Having considered this situation carefully, we concluded that there is a clear prima facie case for taking a fresh look at the distribution of Dioceses and their boundaries. To that end, one of our main recommendations is that a new Dioceses Commission „with teeth‟ should be given the brief to keep under active review the diocesan structure of the Church of England, and to make specific proposals for reorganisation to General Synod. We regard this as an essential concomitant to the greater empowerment we propose for Dioceses in determining mission and ministry for the people of this nation. At present, and no doubt for the future, challenging questions also arise about our church buildings. As our theological consultant reminded us, “church buildings are essentially of the

    Interim”; yet many regard them as sacred space and there is wide public interest in what happens to churches when they are thought to be „redundant‟. The very word „redundant‟ is regarded by many as unhelpful, potentially misleading or unduly negative, and the current legislation affecting church buildings is perceived by many to be over-prescriptive with its difficult and excessively time-consuming processes. We have sought, therefore, to simplify and speed up the processes, facilitate the extended use of church buildings, create greater flexibility for Dioceses, and provide a single, unified national Church source of information and advice on church buildings. We have also made specific recommendations to replace the negative word „redundant‟ with more appropriate and positive terminology.

    Throughout our work we have been wonderfully encouraged and guided by so many people, but especially by Martin Cavender (who gave us invaluable advice, particularly on mission initiatives, based on his extensive experience as Director of Springboard) and all those who took the trouble to respond whether to our questionnaires or to our open invitations to share their views on the many and complex issues involved. The dedication and skill of the staff of the Church Commissioners and Church House who so patiently and painstakingly analysed those responses and finally produced the working drafts of our unanimous report was, quite simply, magnificent. We are indeed grateful to them all Martin Elengorn, David

    Hebblethwaite, Colin Podmore, Sue Jones, Andrea Mulkeen, Peter Wagon, Jo Winn-Smith and many others for their never-tiring support.

    In the end, we did not yield to the temptation simply to „put past behind us‟; rather, we sought to build on the best of the past Measures, and provide for a new single, coherent Measure - a significant further „step‟ - that we believe will facilitate the development of our

    „mission- shaped‟ Church, take us with confidence „for the future‟ and last effectively „for the years‟.

Professor Peter Toyne,

    Chairman of the Review Group.


Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email