Report of Deanery Special meeting on 7th June 2010

This was an open meeting attended by over 100 people from across the deanery to allow widest presentation and consideration of the Deanery Ministry Plan (now at version 4.4). To this end Stephen Girling handed to all as they arrived a two-page summary of the plan, which Synod members had already received in full in advance. The agenda provided for one item of Synod business, i.e. that Synod members (only) would vote to commend the plan for further discussion and use.

The meeting began with worship led by Peter Hall and Mike Terry, in which Genesis 28:10-end was read, Psalm 127 referred to and we were invited to take a stone to build into a prayer “cairn” to undergird the rest of the meeting.

After a brief refreshment break Stephen Girling as Area Dean welcomed us with a reminder that this was “a staging post on the journey” – not the final word.  Church attendance in Fareham deanery had declined 5% between 2001 and 2008 (as against 12.4% in the diocese); it was realised that the basis for Christian service was baptism, not ordination; independently minded parishes ploughing their own furrow was not a healthy image of the body of Christ when clergy resources were declining. We need to plan for mission, for a growing church, for strong partnerships with other churches and for increased resources – not fear and retrenchment.

Three brief presentations now followed:

(1)  An enabled parish (Peter Hall): This is one where every baptised member plays their part in mission, is aware of their gifts, is confident of who they are in God, where growth is the norm, where leadership is shared between authorised ministers, parish boundaries no longer restrict, where there is willingness to share within the deanery, where our traditions do not make us defensive. It is outward looking and mission focussed. We’re at different stages here if we’re honest, but our aim is for an enabled deanery.

(2)  Clusters (Philip Cochrane): Parish boundaries are being ignored in all planning for schools and social services, and we need to break down thinking with that narrowed focus. The schools work within the Haven cluster needs to be seen broadly and creatively. Where resources are scarce they need to be shared. Just as in a good marriage the sum totals more than the individuals, so a cluster of parishes is greater than individual parishes and enables wider outreach into the community.

(3)  Local Leadership Teams (LLT’s) (Charlie Allen): One such team is proposed for each parish, flexibly, not imposed; there is no need for conflict with the PCC, because the LLT will help carry out what the PCC have decided. An LLT will better reflect this than a vicar on his / her own, together putting ministry into action. This has already been tried out, at Portchester and elsewhere, and means that ministry is away from the vicar alone and owned by everyone.

Andy Norris now invited us to divide into groups to formulate questions to write on post-it notes to stick on one sheet of kitchen paper for each of the three topics just covered. Each of these questions would then be posted on the deanery website. The speakers also gave their immediate reactions:

• Issues of churchmanship and policy: Philip Cochrane said that much of this adjustment already happens, valuing the differences and respecting and honouring the traditions of others.

• Declining the ministry of ordained women: The cluster should be broad enough to absorb such issues with sensitivity.

•  The secular connotations of “management”: Peter Hall said his own background was management, and doubted the clash between management and ordained ministry, agreeing the need for priesthood (including priesthood of all believers).

•  LLTs and danger of over-busyness: Charlie Allen said that in Chapter the composition of LLTs was still under discussion. Clergy roles would not be delegated and they would still provide oversight. The sacraments would           not be undervalued. Everyone will still know who their clergy-person is.

•  Timescale: Stephen Girling said that as we are an episcopal church, the plan would be submitted to Bishop Christopher as he arrives. Parishes declining to join in have the right to a parallel journey – this is an invitation only. Originally it had been intended to agree the plan in September, but it is now realised that this is too   ambitious. There is more to work on yet in refining details. Andy Norris added that comments already made   had influenced modifications to the plan.       

Then followed three more presentations:

(4)  Role descriptions (Bill Matthews): We are rebuilding broken walls, and Jethro’s counsel to Moses to delegate (Exodus 18:13-end) is relevant. With reduction of stipendiary clergy from 11 to 7.5 things couldn’t be done as before. Flexibility and clarity will be needed, with the right living stones (1 Peter 2) in the right places. Clergy roles have hitherto been aspirational, not giving flexibility for different needs in different places; in contrast NSMs have a ministry agreement so expectations are known. Common tenure (as from February 2011) will further give clergy specific responsibilities and rights.

(5)  Future flexibility (Stuart Forster):  For the flexibility of Kairos posts and use of housing, a structure is needed (who fails to plan plans to fail). With reduced numbers of clergy, more vocations than ever but yet more retirements, there has to be a managed reduction of clergy but involvement of more others. The estimate is 7.5 stipendiary clergy + 2 other Kairos posts, paid for by money saved from other posts. So far this has enabled the Growing Leaders course, the Kairos consultancy and the Deanery Families Worker. As vicarages are vacated, further uses can be sought. Stephen Girling added that at present due to financial issues in the diocese the Kairos posts were currently frozen, but it was hoped to “unfreeze” them.

(6)  Legal partnerships (Archdeacon Peter Hancock): A handout was given out with more detail, but five models were presented:

The cluster where parishes were informally associated with no legal basis, but united in purpose and mission.

The team ministry where there is a common policy and one team (possibly district church councils).    

The group ministry where parishes remain separate but there is a group council with an elected chair uniting them. Like the team ministry, this has a legal basis of commitment, overseen beyond the diocese by the Church Commissioners.

The plurality where parishes are united by having a shared incumbent (but separate PCCs).

The united benefice where under a shared incumbent there is a single PCC.

Again we divided into groups to discuss and formulate questions on post-its, eventually for the deanery website. Again some questions were addressed:

• Why are we going for clusters when there are alternatives? Peter Hancock said that this is a journey – clusters may be only the start. He noted that in 5 years there will be 25% clergy reductions and in 10 years 40% of the clergy will retire (but that doesn’t take new vocations into account).

• How can we be “family” still if we’re getting so big?  Bill Matthews remarked that this underlined the need for role definition and key contacts and relationships. With clusters we could only “see how it goes”.

The time now came for the motion to Deanery Synod.

Before the motion was put, Bob Miller (from St Peter & St Paul, Fareham) requested an amendment. This was to add to the end of the motion the wording,

“while affording proper regard to the variety of churchmanship and traditions of parishes.”

This amendment was proposed by Bob Miller, seconded by Valerie Miller, and carried, 24 votes for, none against and 4 abstentions.              

The amended motion was then put to Synod, now reading

“Synod commends Deanery Ministry Plan 4.4 for further detailing and discussion and as the basis for future pastoral reorganisation, while affording proper regard to the variety of churchmanship and traditions of parishes.”

This was proposed by Stephen Girling, seconded by Philip Cochrane, and carried, 34 votes for, nem con.

Stephen Girling now announced to the meeting that the Rev Christopher Woodman had been appointed as priest-in-charge of St Peter & St Paul, Fareham, to be licensed on 1^st September. The two other vacant posts, the priest-in-charge of St Peter’s Titchfield, and of Holy Trinity, Fareham, were being advertised in the Church Times with a view to interviewing in the middle of July.

Peter Hancock in closing the meeting, noted that we were called to be a people of praise, a people of promise  and a people of prayer. Referring again to Moses, he noted that whether or not we see the pillar of cloud and fire, we know God is with us – we need to build with Him (Psalm 127:1-3).

                                                                                                                                    Robin Green
8 June 2010

Disclaimer: This report has yet to be approved by Fareham Deanery Synod, which meets next on Wednesday 22 September.