Bishop John Packer of Ripon and Leeds in his Advent Address gives some interesting answers… which may resonate with some folk in the C of I !
Inevitably in these months we are involved in discussions concerning the proposed diocese of Leeds, its structure and its boundaries. We shall all have the opportunity at deanery and diocesan Synods to put forward our views and to test the proposals by questioning them.
I am happy to respond to questions about the details of the proposals, but essentially tonight I want to take a step back from that, and explore what we mean by a diocese, and what it should contribute to our mission and ministry.
The Church of England is a parochial church. Whatever some ecclesiologists may say the heart of the Church of England, both legally and I believe effectively, lies in its parishes. The law is based far more on Churchwardens and PCCs than on diocesan boards or indeed bishops. Incumbents have very specific legal rights meant to ensure their independence of bishops, patrons and PCCs. This rightly preserves the duty of the incumbent to follow his or her conscience within the parameters of Canon Law and the Measures which spring from that. I know that Common Tenure is sometimes seen as challenging that, and most of us want to be paid, so there is a necessary relationship with the Diocesan Board of Finance, but both parish and incumbent retain their own rights and duties which are not subject to episcopal, diocesan or even archidiaconal behest.
So I believe that a diocese is the servant of parochial mission. The parish is responsible to and for its local community, so that there is a duty to take up the Christian care of everyone, and the proclaiming of the good news of Jesus Christ to everyone.
Nevertheless the diocese is more than a group of parishes who have got together for mutual support or defence. Collaboration in mission is essential if we are to fulfil our calling to minister in the first place. So fresh expressions such as Kairos in Harrogate seek to explore ways of mission which go beyond parish boundaries and complement parochial ministry. Pioneer ministries such as that to the night-time economy in Leeds provide mission to particular groups. Chaplaincy speaks to the needs of institutions such as schools, hospitals or airports – where a particular approach is necessary for the care of those in that institution – be they customers or staff. The diocese also provides the means whereby those parishes with a particular concern can band together and be trained together. This may be those with significant numbers of refugees, or with issues of the cost of fuel in rural areas. They can be supported and encouraged by diocesan officers or groups. A diocese also provides the opportunity for mutual support across the area. I realise that I expose myself to ridicule when I say that amongst the best things about the Church of England is its parish share system. No doubt it could always be improved, but the way we support one another through that system is far more consonant with the gospel than either a system whereby every church has to fend for itself, or one where churches are subjected to a central authority. That said, this system will only work where there is mutual respect, prayer and trust.
The simplest answer to the question, ‘What is a diocese?’ is that it is an area. It exists on the ground and has boundaries. Hence it needs to make sense in its relationship to where people live and work. It is fascinating, in our present debates, to read R H Malden’s history of the diocese of Ripon written for its centenary in 1936. The diocese of Bradford had been separated from Ripon in 1920, following Wakefield in 1888, and Malden was no fan of the new arrangements. He doubted whether Bradford was large enough to sustain itself into the future, but he was more concerned with the diminished size of Ripon. He believed that a diocese with those boundaries would inevitably be drawn to Leeds as containing some two-thirds of its population. It would therefore, he believed, create a dissonance between the diocese and its Cathedral, and isolate those who lived in the north of the new diocese. It sends a shiver down my spine to realise how prescient he was. If we are to have a diocese with our present boundaries then I believe it to be absolutely right for the concentration to be on Leeds where most of the people live and work, but it is not an easy equation to get right, granted the needs and requirements of the more rural north of our diocese.
Hence, for me, the attraction of a diocese with an area system. I confess to a dislike of single bishop dioceses, and that for two reasons. First, they give an undue prominence to the diocesan bishop, giving no opportunity to model collaborative ministry amongst the bishops. Bishops need to take the opportunity to share practice and wisdom and work together, but if there is only one of them then that is impossible. Second, practically, my experience of single bishop dioceses is that they spend their time looking around for a person in episcopal orders to act as an assistant – Leicester and Newcastle would be examples. That can work brilliantly but it is dependent upon who is around at the time.
In an area system there are the advantages of size which ought to provide better and more flexible support for parishes, and alongside that the advantages of a smaller area, with its bishop and archdeacon, which can concentrate on the needs of its area. Hence in the proposed diocese the Ripon area can take seriously the issues of rural church and rural community in a way which we endeavour to do with greater or lesser success! Meanwhile the Leeds area, with almost all the parishes of Leeds within it, can concentrate on the particular needs of the city. We can concentrate on place, community and network in a way which resonates with mission to those we seek to serve. At its worst there could be endless squabbling about what belongs to the diocese and what to the area. At its best the proper subsidiarity which allocates responsibility to the most appropriate level can enhance mission significantly.
That takes us to bishops. I am suspicious of a contemporary obsession with leadership when it creates and sustains hierarchies and allows us to pass responsibility to others and evade it ourselves. However, I accept that there is a need for particular directions and vision and that our way of thinking and developing mission does put a particular responsibility on individuals, whom we call bishops, to encourage and sustain those. Area bishops can, with the archdeacons, develop and enthuse that missionary thinking. They are bound together by the diocesan structure, with the diocesan bishop having the responsibility to ensure that the visions of the different parts of the diocese cohere. The bishops are ordained to promote the unity of the church – ecumenically and amongst the parishes. They are called to represent the whole church and take part in is deliberations through the national college of bishops. They also have a particular missionary task to the place where they are called to serve, which may raise a question as to whether anyone can be the ‘Bishop of Ripon and Leeds’.
So what of Cathedrals? This is either mind-bogglingly complicated or blatantly obvious. The Cathedral is the mother church of the area in which it is set. That is why it is so difficult for Ripon to be the mother church for a diocese where the vast majority of people in the diocese have one, two or sometimes three cathedrals nearer to where they live than our own Cathedral. On the other hand the designation of a Cathedral for the Dales fits Ripon excellently, as, increasingly, does the description of it as a Cathedral for North Yorkshire – though we remain aware that there is another Cathedral in North Yorkshire. What a Cathedral is not is the seat of the bishop. That is his see, or seat, which can be anywhere – in his chapel for example. The Cathedrals and their life are the responsibility of the bishop but there is no reason why he – or she – should not have more than one. This should be particularly clear to those of us in this diocese. When it was created in 1836 the Whig governments of the day had no objection to more Cathedrals, but they were quite clear that they did not want more bishops in the House of Lords interfering with their policies – and taking political stances in a way bishops would never do now. So if Ripon was to have a bishop then Gloucester and Bristol most become a single see with one bishop and two Cathedrals. That continued for 60 years, by which time they had thought of a different way of restricting the number of bishops in the House of Lords.
So much for ecclesiology. Much more important is the mission work of Cathedrals – and it is no accident that the strongest opposition in Yorkshire to the whole idea of secondary Cathedrals, or demoting cathedrals, came from our local authorities. Ripon – and Harrogate, Bradford and Wakefield all see their Cathedrals as constitutive of the life, vitality and spirituality of their city. A Cathedral which demonstrates its concern for its community becomes an icon of it. The Church of England must not withdraw from its Cathedrals for the sake of our mission and proclaiming of the gospel, and that puts a particular responsibility on any Cathedral to see itself as the bearer of that kingship of Christ for the whole of the community in which it is set, and in support of all the parishes and communities for which it is the mother church. It is a demanding vision. We need in this place to ensure that it is fulfilled.
Which brings us to Committees. I like Committees, though I know that is the sort of thing you are only allowed to say in the confessional. Committees, properly directed, give us the chance to develop a sense of direction and purpose. Committees have a dangerous habit both of proliferating and meeting too often, but they can also encourage and give mission impetus. We can benefit from a larger vision – whether, for example in clergy and lay training, in our urban and rural mission or indeed in our financial arrangements. We have had an excellent example in our joint education team with Bradford over the last decade. It has enabled us to have a far more effective relationship with our schools than we had ten years ago, but it does have difficulties in serving the two masters of the two dioceses. A single board would give greater opportunity and flexibility.
I do believe that a larger diocese creates greater opportunities, so long as the area system is well constructed and operated. One of the greatest advantages would be more opportunities for clergy seeking new posts. In theory, clergy can look for posts anywhere, but some two-thirds serve all their ministry as priests-in-charge or incumbents in the same diocese. For the first time this year we have found it impossible to find posts of responsibility for those reaching the end of their title posts as curates. I regret that and believe a larger diocese would ease that problem which can cause considerable distress, as well as a waste of skills and vision.
I look forward to the discussion over the coming 18 months of whether the proposals for Yorkshire fulfil the vision which we need to develop for a diocese. I believe it needs to be large enough to create flexibility and encourage mutual support: have areas small enough for a sense of concentration on the issues of those communities: and above all enable us to share the vision God has given us with more of our fellow – Christians, learning from them and contributing to them. Only so will any diocese be enabled to encourage parishes in their following of God’s call and deepening sense of discipleship and service.
+John Ripon and Leeds
November 2011