by Gareth Miller

“ The diocese can’t afford to pay its clergy”; “Secret plan to reduce the number of dioceses”; “Top-heavy church is failing surf generation”; “Third archbishop needed to ease burden”; “There is no pastoral care of the clergy in this diocese”. Headlines such as these have been littering the pages of The Church Times and the wider press over the past two years or so. Clearly there is a crisis – both financial and pastoral. The structure of The Church of England is seen as top-heavy and excessively bureaucratic. Bishops and archdeacons are seen as over-burdened and remote.

Yet solutions seem piecemeal and panicky. “The faithful should give more sacrificially”; “Reduce the number of bishops”; “Change the management culture”. But none of these has been fully thought through.

I want to suggest a solution which would seem to answer a number of these conundrums as well as providing a fresher, more logical, simplified and more ecclesiologically coherent framework for the C of E. For many years I have been struck by the large number of inconsistencies in the diocesan organisation of the Church: huge disparities in the size of dioceses; the anomaly of suffragan bishops; lack of overlap between episcopal and archidiaconal areas; lack of coherence with civil boundaries; duplication of resources. All these, and others, make the church cumbersome to manage and it is difficult for dioceses to function as focused and integrated units.

My proposal is for a larger number of dioceses, grouped into provinces. Various suggestions of a similar nature have been made over the past forty years (see list of committees below) but have never been acted upon. The onus has always been, and continues to be, on local bishops or synods to ask for a review and then seek a consensus. Yet such a consensus has never been achieved, and the case for a more general and wide–ranging review is now strong. Moreover, the work of The Dioceses Commission is, I understand, currently subject to review. Its report for the year 2001 shows that it did very little during those twelve months, except to agree to continue to provide funding for assistant bishops in the dioceses of Leicester and Newcastle!

My proposal will mean no significant increase in the number of bishops, as the need for area bishops and suffragans will be eliminated (the original version of this sentence, before checking, ran: “area bishops and suffragans will be eliminated” – an excessively Stalinist move, perhaps). In addition, many of the services and functions currently carried out at diocesan level will be moved to a central office at provincial level.

A Provincial Structure

At present the two provinces of Canterbury and York are virtually meaningless entities and do not seem to serve any useful purpose. They are too large for the metropolitans to exercise pastoral care over the diocesan bishops and do not provide any sense of focus or foster any particular loyalties.

I propose ten provinces, to cohere largely with the nine government regions in England, namely: London, the South-East, the South-West, the East of England, the West Midlands, the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North-West and the North-East. The only exception would be that the South-East should be divided into two provinces, Canterbury and Winchester, because this region is too large and diverse (a factor also noted by many in the civil administration of the South-East) and to give the Archbishop of Canterbury only a small province because of his other responsibilities.

The metropolitan see cities will be:

Canterbury
York
London
Winchester
Durham
Exeter
Ely (or, possibly, Norwich)
Birmingham (or, possibly, Lichfield)
Lincoln
Liverpool

(see map)

Each province will be headed by an Archbishop whose role will be:

a) immediate pastoral care of a small number of parishes in the metropolitical see city (and, possibly, district/deanery);
b) pastoral care of the bishops in his province;
c) visits to the dioceses in his province;
d) a distinctive national role (eg chairmanship of a board or commission).
e) other responsibilities, as may be thought fit.

The metropolitan see city will generally be one with a large cathedral, which will assume the role of mother church of the province. It will also be the place for major provincial occasions, consecrations (rather than London, as so often at present) and, possibly, ordinations.

The Provincial See City and Office

The cathedral in the provincial headquarters will be fully staffed with a Dean and Chapter of up to six canons. Two of the canons will be the Archdeacon and the Precentor. The other three will, in addition to their residential duties in the cathedral, have major roles within the province as directors of education, ministry, training, or other similar responsibilities.

The Archdeacon, though having care of a small area (coterminous with that of the Archbishop), would be the senior archdeacon in the province (as are the present Archdeacons of Canterbury and York) and would chair gatherings of fellow archdeacons and assume a supportive and pastoral role, as well as having a clearly defined position in the cathedral.

The provincial office will assume many of the responsibilities of the present dioceses, and will be headed by a senior layman. Areas of competence will include finance, education, training, ministry, and so forth.

The Dioceses

The aim of this proposal is to makes the dioceses smaller, simpler and more coherent, and the bishops more accessible and in closer pastoral contact with their clergy and people. This will be done by moving many current diocesan functions and committees to provincial level. This will increase efficiency and avoid excessive bureaucracy and duplication of limited resources. It will also free bishops and archdeacons from having to sit on a large number of committees

Each diocese will have one bishop and one archdeacon, whose areas will be geographically coterminous. The diocese will have a small office, which will probably contain the bishop’s and archdeacon’s offices under the same roof, together with such support staff as may be necessary to maintain and service a scaled-down diocese. The bishop may have a (part-time?) chaplain.

Each diocese will normally cohere with local government boundaries. This will make it much easier for church dignitaries to relate to the civil authorities and to take part in local events. The bishop will be the pastor of an area that is universally recognised as a unit. This will reinforce the concept of one bishop in one place (without the confusing role of suffragans – essentially episcopal curates) and will help him (or her) to be seen as the focus of unity.

Each bishop will have his seat in his own cathedral. Clearly, in many cases the cathedral will be a large and ancient one, with its own statutes and establishment. It would be my hope that in due course these cathedrals would be able to manage with a slimmed-down regime. But this may take some time, and obviously larger and older cathedrals tend to need more personnel than parish church cathedrals.

However, many of the proposed dioceses will have existing parish church cathedrals (eg Bradford, Chelmsford, Derby) and others will have to be created. In some cases the choice of a church as a new cathedral will be obvious, while in other situations the choice will be less clear and possibly more contentious. In all cases, the cathedral will run with a fairly modest staff, namely dean, archdeacon, precentor, and possibly a minor canon or succentor. It is anticipated that the archdeacon, now that the bishop is able to be more pastorally involved in the diocese, will be able to play a fuller part in the life of the cathedral, and that this will avoid the need to have another residentiary canon.

The precise boundaries of deaneries would be a matter for diocesan debate, but it may be that the boundaries of the district council would be appropriate (though possibly too large?).

Another feature of this proposal which I believe will commend it is that simplified and smaller dioceses will prove attractive to ecumenical partners, especially the Methodist Church, whose system of districts and chairmen already follows a similar model.

Problems

It is horrendously difficult to establish a decent rationale for an optimum number of clergy to one bishop, of clergy to churches/parishes/benefices, and the relationship of both the above to geographical area. I have showed the chart (attached/opposite/below) to a statistician and he was totally confounded by the complexity of the equation. So the areas suggested are based on a balance of ingredients, and an instinct for what feels right.

Some might say that having only one bishop and one archdeacon in each diocese would focus attention too much on particular personalities and rob a diocese of the variety of gifts and characters afforded by the present system. This is an important point, but I feel it is outweighed by the advantages of these proposals, and should be counter-balanced by the stress that would be laid on the collegial nature of the provincial structure. There would still be assistant and retired bishops, and the archbishop would be a regular visitor to each diocese.

It might also seem that a blanket scheme such as this is too centralist in its essential ethos. There is much to be said for local solutions, and the government is, perhaps rightly, allowing the creation of regional assemblies and other institutions to emerge as popular demand dictates. Yet the relatively recent review of local authority boundaries and the creation of unitary authorities in some places but not in others has led to an incredibly messy situation, and I would hope that the Church would see fit to embrace a more coherent solution.

I do not for one moment suppose that the ideas outlined above will meet with universal approval. Nor have I attempted to provide a theological framework, for the case for one bishop in one place has been comprehensively argued elsewhere. I am trying to open a debate, and am well aware that my proposals are very simple, possibly simplistic. Nor do I underestimate the extraordinary amount of work that would be involved in implementing such proposals, or the tensions that would be created by disturbing traditional loyalties to dioceses. But desperate times call for desperate remedies. Or, as Tony Blair said at the Labour Party Conference, “The radical solution is usually the right one.” What do you think?

Send your comments to The Church Times, and to me at

Gareth Miller
Chelwood
Market Street
Charlbury
OXON OX7 3PL

Email: garethmiller@tiscali.co.uk

and to your bishop!

The Reverend Gareth Miller is a minister in secular employment.

Appendix: Church Assembly and General Synod reports relevant to the work of The Dioceses Commission:

CA 1653 Diocesan Boundaries, being the Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on the Organisation of the Church by Dioceses in London and the South-East of England, 1967 (Chairman: Sir John Arbuthnot);
GS 63 Bishops and Dioceses (ACCM) The Report of the Ministry Committee Working Party on the Episcopate, 1971 (Chairman: Bishop Cyril Bowles);
GS 79 Second Report of the Cathedrals and New Dioceses Committee, 1972 (Chairman: H M Connop Price); GS 167 Episcopacy in the Church of England: A Consultative Document by Paul A Welsby, 1973;
GS 214 Report by Standing Committee on
GS 167; Diocesan Organisation in Greater London: Report of the Archbishop’s Commission, 1976 (Chairman: Sir Edmund Compton);
GS 944 Episcopal Ministry: The Report of the Archbishop’s Group on the Episcopate, 1990 (Chairman: Chancellor Sheila Cameron).

A CHURCH SIMPLIFIED AND RENEWED - A PLAN FOR PROVINCES AND DIOCESES

THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City of Canterbury

The Bishop of Dover (Canterbury [apart from the city of Canterbury],Dover, Thanet, Shepway, Ashford)
The Bishop of Maidstone (Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Sevenoaks)
The Bishop of Rochester (Rochester, Gravesham, Dartford, Gillingham, Swale)
The Bishop of Hastings (or Battle) (Hastings, Rother, Eastbourne, Wealden)

THE PROVINCE OF LONDON

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City of London

The Bishop of Kensington (Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham, part of Westminster)
The Bishop of St Marylebone (Camden, Islington, part of Westminster)
The Bishop of Stepney (Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham)
The Bishop of Barking (Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge)
The Bishop of Edmonton (Haringey, Waltham Forest, Enfield)
The Bishop of Willesden (Brent, Harrow, Barnet)
The Bishop of Ealing (Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow)
The Bishop of Kingston (Kingston, Richmond, Merton)
The Bishop of Croydon (Croydon, Sutton, Bromley)
The Bishop of Woolwich (Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexley)
The Bishop of Southwark (Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth)

THE PROVINCE OF WINCHESTER

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and Deanery of Winchester

The Bishop of Newport (The Isle of Wight)(poss also Channel Islands?)(Bp also serves as A’deacon?)
The Bishop of Southampton (Southampton, New Forest, Eastleigh, Test Valley, part of Winchester)
The Bishop of Portsmouth (Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport, Havant)
The Bishop of Basingstoke (Basingstoke & Deane, East Hants, Hart, Rushmoor, part of Winchester)
The Bishop of Chichester (Chichester, Arun, Worthing, Horsham, Adur)
The Bishop of Brighton (or Lewes) (Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Mid Sussex, Crawley)
The Bishop of Guildford (Guildford, Waverley,Woking, Surrey Heath, Runnymede, Spelthorne)
The Bishop of Reigate (Reigate & Banstead, Tandridge, Mole Valley, Epsom & Ewell, Elmbridge)
The Bishop of Reading (Reading, Newbury, Wokingham)
The Bishop of Windsor (or Bracknell) (Windsor & Maidenhead, Slough, Bracknell Forest) (+Runnymede? + South Bucks?)
The Bishop of Oxford (Oxford)
The Bishop of Dorchester (West Oxon, South Oxon, Vale of WH, Cherwell)
The Bishop of Buckingham (or Aylesbury, or Wycombe) (Aylesbury Vale, Wycombe, Chiltern, Milton Keynes)(South Bucks ? to Windsor)

THE PROVINCE OF EXETER

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and District of Exeter

The Bishop of Truro (Carrick, Kerrier, Penwith)
The Bishop of Bodmin (or St Germans)(Caradon, Restormel, N Cornwall)
The Bishop of Plymouth (Plymouth, South Hams, Torbay)
The Bishop of Barnstaple (N Devon, W Devon, Torridge)
The Bishop of Crediton (Mid Devon, E Devon, Teignbridge)
The Bishop of Sherborne (W Dorset, N Dorset, Weymouth & Portland, Purbeck)
The Bishop of Wimborne (or Christchurch) (E Dorset, Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch)
The Bishop of Taunton (Taunton Deane, W Somerset, Sedgemoor, S Somerset)
The Bishop of Bath & Wells (Mendip, Bath & NE Somerset, N Somerset)
The Bishop of Bristol (Bristol, S Gloucs)
The Bishop of Salisbury (Salisbury, W Wilts, Kennet)
The Bishop of Swindon (Thamesdown, N Wilts)
The Bishop of Gloucester (Gloucester, Stroud, Forest of Dean)
The Bishop of Tewkesbury (Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Cotswold)

THE PROVINCE OF ELY

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City of Ely & District of E Cambs

The Bishop of Cambridge (Cambridge)
The Bishop of Huntingdon (Huntingdonshire, S Cambs, Fenland)
The Bishop of Southend (Southend, Rochford, Castle Point, Basildon, Thurrock)
The Bishop of Chelmsford (Chelmsford, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow, Uttlesford)
The Bishop of Colchester (Colchester, Tendring, Braintree, Maldon)
The Bp of St Edmundsbury (St Edmundsbury, Forest Heath, Babergh, Mid Suffolk)
The Bishop of Ipswich(or Dunwich) (Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal, Waveney)

The Bishop of Norwich (Norwich, S Norfolk, Broadland, Gt Yarmouth, part of N Norfolk)
The Bishop of Lynn (King’s Lynn & W Norfolk, Breckland, part of N Norfolk)
The Bishop of Bedford (Bedford, Mid Beds, South Beds, Luton)
The Bishop of St Albans (St Albans, Hertsmere, Watford, Three Rivers, Dacorum)
The Bishop of Hertford (E Herts, Broxbourne, Welwyn Hatfield, Stevenage, N Herts,)

THE PROVINCE OF BIRMINGHAM

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City of Birmingham

The Bishop of Dudley (Dudley, Sandwell)
The Bp of Wolverhampton (Wolverhampton, Walsall)
The Bishop of Solihull (Solihull, S Birmingham, N Birmingham)
The Bishop of Coventry (Coventry, Nuneaton & Bedworth, N Warks)
The Bishop of Warwick (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon, Rugby)
The Bishop of Worcester (Worcester, Malvern Hills, Wyre Forest)
The Bishop of Pershore (Wychavon, Bromsgrove, Redditch)
The Bishop of Hereford (Hereford, S Herefs, Leominster)
The Bishop of Shrewsbury (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Oswestry, South Salop)
The Bishop of Telford (The Wrekin, Bridgnorth, North Salop)
The Bishop of Lichfield (Lichfield, Tamworth, Cannock Chase, South Staffs, East Staffs)
The Bishop of Stafford (or Stoke) (Stafford, Stoke, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire Moorlands)

THE PROVINCE OF LINCOLN

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and District of Lincoln

The Bishop of Grimsby (N Lincs, NE Lincs, E Lindsey, W Lindsey) (some poss to York province?)
The Bishop of Grantham (or Boston) (S Kesteven, N Kesteven, S Holland, Boston)
The Bishop of Peterborough (Peterborough, E Northants, Corby, Kettering)
The Bishop of Northampton (Northampton, S Northants, Daventry, Wellingborough)
The Bishop of Leicester (Leicester, Oadby & Wigston, Blaby, Harborough, Rutland)
The Bishop of Loughborough (Charnwood, Hinckley & Bosworth, NW Leics, Melton)
The Bishop of Derby (Derby, Erewash, S Derbys, Amber Valley)
The Bishop of Chesterfield (or Buxton) (Chesterfield, Bolsover, NE Derbys, Derbyshire Dales, High Peak)
The Bishop of Nottingham (Nottingham, Broxtowe, Gedling, Rushcliffe)
The Bishop of Southwell (Newark & Sherwood, Ashfield, Mansfield, Bassetlaw)

THE PROVINCE OF LIVERPOOL

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and District of Liverpool

The Bishop of Warrington (Warrington, Halton, St Helens, Knowsley)
The Bishop of Southport (Sefton, W Lancs, Chorley, S Ribble)
The Bishop of Chester (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Wirral)
The Bishop of Macclesfield (or Crewe) (Macclesfield, Congleton, Crewe& Nantwich, Vale Royal)
The Bishop of Manchester (Central Manchester, Salford)
The Bishop of Bolton (Bolton, Wigan, Bury)
The Bishop of Middleton (Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside)
The Bishop of Stockport (Stockport, S Manchester, Trafford)
The Bishop of Blackburn (Blackburn, Hyndburn, Rossendale, Burnley, Pendle, Ribble Valley)
The Bishop of Lancaster (Lancaster, Wyre, Preston, Blackpool, Fylde)
The Bishop of Kendal (South Lakeland, Barrow-in-Furness, Eden)
The Bishop of Carlisle (Carlisle, Allerdale, Copeland)

THE PROVINCE OF YORK

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and District of York

The Bishop of Ripon (Harrogate, Craven)
The Bishop of Richmond (Richmondshire, Hambleton)
The Bishop of Whitby (Scarborough, Ryedale)
The Bishop of Beverley (E Riding, Kingston-upon-Hull, Selby)
The Bishop of Doncaster (Doncaster, Rotherham)
The Bishop of Sheffield (Sheffield, Barnsley)
The Bishop of Leeds (Leeds)
The Bishop of Wakefield (Wakefield, Kirklees)
The Bishop of Bradford (Bradford, Calderdale)

THE PROVINCE OF DURHAM

Archbishop
Jurisdiction: The City and District of Durham

The Bp of Middlesbrough (Middlesbrough, Redcar & Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees, Hartlepool)
The Bishop of Darlington (Darlington, Sedgefield, Teesdale, Wear Valley)
The Bishop of Sunderland (Sunderland, Chester-le-Street, Easington)
The Bishop of Gateshead (or Jarrow) (Gateshead, S Tyneside)
The Bishop of Newcastle (Newcastle, N Tyneside) (Blyth Valley?)
The Bishop of Hexham (Tynedale, Derwentside)
The Bishop of Lindisfarne (Blyth Valley?) (Alnwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Castle (or Berwick, or Alnwick) Morpeth, Wansbeck)

Note A
Total number of bishops at present: 106; total number of archdeacons at present: 114
Total number of bishops in proposals: 114; archdeacons 114.

Note B
The proposals above presuppose that it might be desirable to provide bishops exclusively for Oxford and Cambridge, given their unusual status, and who might be distinguished academics, and whose pastoral role would include oversight of the many college chaplains and other academics in holy orders. Others might resist such a close identification of a bishop with a university city.