CHANGES to the rules governing church closures and parish reorganisation received first consideration by the General Synod on the Friday.
Introducing the debate, the Archdeacon of Ludlow, the Ven. Fiona Gibson (Hereford), introduced the Draft Mission and Pastoral Measure and accompanying regulations. She had heard various concerns, but wanted to reassure the Synod that neither were they the “finished article”. The revision committee would carefully scrutinise the text and any amendments submitted by members. The Measure was intended to create a legal framework to support churches that were offering local ministry, and to adapt this over time.
The Covid pandemic had highlighted the importance of having flexible processes, she said. In July 2023, the Synod had approved policy proposals for a new Measure, seeking to balance legal simplification with a fair process and the right checks and balances. The Church Commissioners had sketched out where they wanted to draw this balance, but welcomed the Synod’s challenge.
The Measure addressed pastoral change, where mission and ministry would happen, buildings change (including closing a church no longer needed for public worship), and ministry change. It also affected parsonages and church halls, Archdeacon Gibson said. The overall objective remained how to provide best for the cure of souls, she said.
The Commissioners would stay as neutral arbiters of contested decisions, but they had heard “clarion calls” about a breakdown of trust and fears over power balances, she said. The draft legislation was designed to try to allay worries, foster trust, and streamlining the process. Where there was strong local opposition to a proposed closure, there was provision for longer and more in-depth consultation. Because prevention was better than cure, she said, there were also new options to help struggling churches to avoid closure, including letting them go “fallow” for a time before resuming worship when circumstances changed. Not everyone would agree with where the new balances had been drawn, but disagreements could be worked out in the revision committee.
The Revd Dr Mark Smith (Universities and TEIs) expressed concerns about changes to patronage, especially that of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Dioceses could set up new patronage boards without the need for existing patrons to agree, he warned. “This would create more unfairness by removing a vital safeguard for parishes,” he argued, as patrons defended parishes’ traditional character.
The Revd Dr Michael Brydon (Sodor & Man) was worried that the Measure appeared to bypass the expertise of the Church Buildings Council. “I hope that doesn’t stem from any belief that church buildings do not contribute to mission,” he said.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds), echoed this point, arguing that more access to expertise was needed, not less.
Canon Dana Delap (Gloucester) said that a simpler closure process was very welcome, but that most dioceses would not be able to fund internal reports on buildings. So she urged more involvement with the Church Buildings Council, as well as groups such as the Victorian Society. “We have to establish the importance of a church and its contents, before we close it.”
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, who sits on the committee which decides the most contested closures and pastoral-reorganisation schemes, said that he longed for the revitalisation of parishes. The new Measure had to facilitate and not impede worship of God, and seemed to do this, he said.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) also raised concerns about changes to patronage in the draft Measure, which, he said, might unintentionally allow a bishop to keep a parish vacant longer than anyone intended.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, assured the Synod that the Mission and Pastoral and Church Property Committee, which she sat on, took great care to listen to local thinking on any church building which came across their desks. She backed more consideration of the detail on how the committee could receive heritage advice, but urged members not to rip up the new system entirely and pass the draft measure into revision.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Dana Delap (Gloucester)
Tony Allwood (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), a member of the Church Buildings Council, said that the diocese of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich had more than 470 churches, but had not closed any in the past decade. Some parishes had minimal or non-existent congregations, and the effort of trying to keep these churches going, even as festival churches, was a drain on overworked clergy, he said. The current closure process, however, was so complex that it was easier to “just soldier on”. There were many unwanted churches sitting in the middle of a field, with no electricity or heritage interest, which largely ended up mothballed and decaying, offering a poor Christian witness. He welcomed the changes, but said that reforms had to go further to speed up those kinds of closure.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said that the Mission and Pastoral Measure was the reason that Save the Parish had been established, three years ago. “This is because of the love that people have for their parishes and their churches, and the fear we have about the way they and their churches are treated.” He spoke of the “broken souls” of people who felt overlooked in parishes, but praised the committee behind the draft Measure for listening to them and improving the legislation. He welcomed the fallow process, and the new “parity of arms” between parishes and dioceses. He hoped that the rights of patrons would not be watered down and that the expertise of the Church Buildings Council would be properly used. While the Measure could be improved, it was worth carrying.
Prebendary Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu (London) said that Mission was not just about expanding numbers, but making sure that church structures “serve the gospel rather than hinder it”. Wrong decisions on church closures or pastoral reorganisation could have a profound impact, but he welcomed the draft Measure as a “vital step in ensuring the Church of England remained missionally agile”. It was transparent and pastorally sensitive, he said. “The Church’s future is not in preserving what was, but joining God in what he’s doing now.”
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) commended the Measure for making the process much easier and creating more agency for parishes. She did, however, share concerns about the sidelining of the Church Buildings Council, which she sat on.
Sarah Finch (London) was concerned about accelerating closures of churches. Earlier versions of this legislation had given the Church Buildings Council a core part to play in the process, she said. In the new Measure, how would the voice of locals who wished to stop the closure of their village church be heard?
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, said that the changes coming in the Measure were “long overdue”. He welcomed its prevention of giving a single objector the same weight in the process as a group of PCCs who had deeply considered the scheme. He had, however, other concerns about weakening statutory consultation for church closures. Mutually beneficial relationships with external bodies should not be avoided, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) said that her current parish had, for a long time, had too many buildings, but it had been very tricky to sell off or repair the unnecessary and crumbling structures. If communities wished to save their buildings, they needed to find ways to finance and maintain them, she said. She welcomed the new avenues that the Measure would open up for her parish.
Peter Bruinvels (Guildford) welcomed the Measure and regulations, but said that the valuable expertise of the church’s staff should not be ignored. He also urged members not to underestimate the importance of archdeacons and on-site visits when considering a closure scheme. “Churches today have a friend in the Church Commissioners, who will listen to the voice of the parish.”
Penny Allen (Lichfield) urged members to consider whether more joint use of buildings and shared congregations could help to revitalise ministry in places where parishes were struggling.
The draft Measure was referred to the revision committee, and debate moved on to the regulations.
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) said that one of her Grade II listed churches was “teetering on the brink of closure”. It was a much-loved part of a deprived community, but repair bills had wiped out the reserves, and the next crisis would probably force closure. This would be the third church to close in her parish, she said, prompting parishioners to conclude that the Church was withdrawing from the area. Yet there was huge missional potential for this struggling church building, and so welcomed the support that the regulations offered. Could there be more resources diverted to prop up churches like this?
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission, the Ven. Sally Gaze (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), also welcomed the regulations, and asked whether there could be language inserted on consulting other denominations on church closures. The Measure would allow a wide range of creative uses for church buildings, which she looked forward to.
The regulations were then referred to the revision committee.
