DIOCESE OF SOUTHWARK REPORT OF THE

Transcription

1 DIOCESE OF SOUTHWARK REPORT OF THE DEANERY REVIEW GROUP January 2004

2 CONTENTS Foreword, by the Archdeacon of Lewisham Introduction The role of deaneries Sizes of deaneries in Southwark Relationship with local authorities Deanery officers Election of laity to deanery synod Elections of laity and clergy to diocesan synod Participation in deanery synod Summary of recommendations Appendices. 24 January 2004 Page 1

3 FOREWORD by the Ven Christine Hardman, Chair of the Deanery Review Group In 2002 the Diocesan Pastoral Committee was asked to consider a proposal to change deanery boundaries in Lambeth Archdeaconry, moving from four deaneries to one large deanery, which would cover the same area as Lambeth Borough. This proposal led to a vigorous debate, with strong views being expressed on both sides of the argument. In the light of this strength of feeling and lack of any kind of consensus, the Pastoral Committee thought it would be helpful for further work to be done, and the Bishop s Council set up a Deanery Review Group, charged with considering a range of structural issues relating to the life of the Church at deanery level in our Diocese. We consulted widely, asking each PCC as well as Deanery Synods for their views. We did this because we wanted to hear the views of all of our parishes, not just from those individuals who might be described as deanery enthusiasts. In addition we sought to hear the experience of both very large and very small deaneries, inviting representatives to come to talk to us and we asked the Diocesan Secretary to share his perspective on the issues involved. Having chosen to consult, we were determined to listen carefully to the responses we received. The recommendations of this report are grounded in that listening. This is very important, because the structures of our Church are not just about bureaucratic or organisational detail, but express our belief about what it means to be the Body of Christ. The way we review our structures is a part of all this. A respectful listening to one another should undergird our life together. Good and effective organisation structures are essential, but not as ends in themselves. Our focus must be our vocation to share in the mission of God. The recommendations of this report are an attempt to sharpen this focus. Underlying the practical, often pragmatic detail, the Review Group has been grappling with some major issues. These include the importance of giving people in the parishes a voice in the life of the Diocese encouraging parishes from different traditions to renounce a lone ranger pattern and to work together for sake of the Kingdom challenging the deaneries to relate to the local civic structures, again for the sake of the Kingdom empowering the laity, and seeking to encourage greater partnership in clergy / lay leadership ensuring that our deanery structures reflect the ethnic diversity of our parishes selecting, training and equipping Rural Deans and Lay Chairs for the work we ask to them do. I would like to thank the members of the Review Group, including our consultants, for many hours of work and the privilege and pleasure of working with them. This is their Report. I would also like to thank Andrew Lane for his skill and patience as our secretary, and Stephen Craven for his sterling work in analysing the questionnaires. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our Rural Deans and Lay Chairs, whose ministry is at the heart of deanery life. January 2004 Page 2

4 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In February 2003 the Bishop s Council agreed to establish a working group (see Appendix 1) to review various issues concerning deaneries (see Terms of Reference below). 1.2 The review was prompted by work carried out within the Archdeaconry of Lambeth to investigate the possibility of the creation of borough-wide deaneries and the recognition of several issues relating to deaneries that needed to be resolved at a diocesan level. 1.3 Terms of Reference To look at the number of deaneries in the diocese and areas and whether there is an effective optimum size To review the table which determines the number of lay people to be elected from each parish to the deanery synod To review the table which determines the number of clergy and laity to be elected to the Diocesan Synod from the deaneries To consider the weighting that is given to smaller parishes and deaneries in the present tables of representation for deanery synods and diocesan synod and whether it is still appropriate To look at the role of deaneries in the light of the recent Bridge Report 1 and the follow-up report Good Practice in Deaneries (GS Misc 639) To consider how laity and Minority Ethnic groups can be encouraged to participate in the life and work of the synods To work in conjunction with the Area Councils Review group, especially on any deliberation on the number of deaneries in each Episcopal Area To bring forward recommendations to the Bishop s Council after having consulted with deaneries and parishes. 1.4 Details of the consultation process may be found in Appendix In 1997, the Bridge Report recommended that deanery synods should be abolished. General Synod decided not to accept this recommendation and produced a guide to encourage good practice in deaneries. 1 Synodical Government in the Church of England A Review. Church House Publishing Good Practice in Deaneries (GS Misc 639). The General Synod of the Church of England. January 2004 Page 3

5 2. THE ROLE OF DEANERIES 2.1 The epistles of the New Testament suggest that dialogue between different congregations played a crucial role in the formation of the early church. 2.2 How should we behave? What should we believe? How should we order our worship? How should we structure our leadership team? Addressing questions like these, Paul and other leaders of the early church wrote at length sometimes to individual churches (Corinthians, Philippians), sometimes to groups of churches in a particular region (Galatians, 1 Peter). Essentially, their letters took these grass roots issues onto a wider stage, comparing and contrasting the experiences of the different churches. Some of the letters were forged in conflict. Others were written from a calmer and more considered standpoint. But in time particularly as the letters began to circulated around the different congregations points of doctrine, conduct and liturgy began to be clarified; the structures of the church began take shape; and a growing sense of unity and co-operation between the different churches began to be established (most strikingly in Paul s collection for the Jerusalem church). At every level, the dialogue between the churches helped establish the distinctive identity of the body of Christ, and give shape to its mission and ministry in different contexts. 2.3 Such dialogue is no less relevant today. Although the essential creeds and 'historic formularies' were agreed long ago, there is a continuing need to re-apply these truths in every generation and context. New questions arise. New discoveries and insights are made. New structures may be called for as the church re-appraises its role in a rapidly-changing society. 2.4 The deanery structure of the Church of England offers a crucial forum for 'grass roots' dialogue, particularly in the following areas: the deanery synod as a forum for the debate of significant issues (e.g. the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate); a forum for sharing and learning for both clergy (in synod and Chapter) and laity; for building relationships that enable cooperation between parishes; as an essential channel from parishes to diocese and from diocese to parishes; the relationship with civic authorities; electorate for diocesan and general synod; forum for discussions affecting the local community. 2.5 Deanery Synods were created by the Synodical Government Measure 1969 with functions defined by section 5 of the Measure (see Appendix 5). 2.6 The national Church House Deaneries Group (see Appendix 6) has prepared a document outlining the roles and responsibilities of Deanery Synod members (see Appendix 7). 2.7 A forum for debate As part of the Synodical government of the Church of England, the deanery synod provides a forum for the debate of issues of national significance. January 2004 Page 4

6 These may be matters that have been sent down from general or diocesan synods (e.g. the Southwark institutional racism report) or matters that have arisen locally and are being sent up to diocesan and/or general synod (e.g. the ordination of women to the priesthood) There is concern that deanery synods feel that matters that are sent down for discussion have sometimes already been decided in another place and often the timescale for discussion is too short. When motions travel in the opposite direction, deanery synods may feel that the matters can disappear into the system and that their work has been in vain. 2.8 A forum for sharing and learning The deanery synod and chapter enables laity and clergy of parishes with a wide range of traditions, socio-economic groups, resources and experience to gather in a forum that enables the sharing of many aspects (both positive and negative) of ministry. This enables parishes of different traditions to learn more about each other and provides a local mutual support network that is particularly effective during vacancies or other difficult times. 2.9 Cooperation between parishes In addition to the above, the deanery forms a grouping of local churches that can act together as a unit or in smaller combinations to promote the mission of the Church in their area. This enables the Church in to be seen working together with a common aim although it is recognised that some of these functions can also be carried out ecumenically with involvement in Churches Together groupings or local Councils of Churches The membership of a deanery promotes the feeling of belonging to the wider church, at local, diocesan and national level, and helps to avoid any onset of congregationalism. All parishes, therefore, should be encouraged by rural deans, lay chairs, archdeacons and area bishops to participate actively in the life of their deanery Two-way communication between parishes and the diocese The deanery provides a convenient channel of communication with the wider diocesan organisation, with deanery synod representatives being encouraged to report back to PCCs on the matters discussed at deanery synod. However, this is not seen to be working well in several deaneries Many diocesan boards and committees have representatives elected from deaneries. This enables deaneries (and parishes) to feel that they have a voice on major diocesan bodies. Unfortunately, many boards and committee find it difficult to recruit members from deaneries. January 2004 Page 5

7 2.11 Relationship with civic authorities The possibility of merging the deaneries of Lambeth, Brixton, Clapham and Streatham to form a single deanery coterminous with the London Borough of Lambeth was proposed in 2003 following discussions between the then Archdeacon of Lambeth and his Rural Deans and Lay Chairs, and following consultations with the deaneries. The proposal was rejected by the Diocesan Pastoral Committee and was one of the factors that led to the setting up of this review The deanery, as a group of local parishes, provides a grouping that can relate to a particular local authority. This works best if the deanery does not bridge local authority boundaries The best avenue of communication can be difficult to find but the role of the Borough Dean is seen to be crucial. Ecumenical Borough Deans are appointed by each significant Christian denomination to develop links with borough councils and their officers and to encourage co-operative action on behalf of the churches Anglican Borough Deans are chosen by the Area Bishop following consultations with the Archdeacons in that Episcopal Area Electorate for diocesan and general synods The membership of deanery synods is the electorate for diocesan synod and general synod. Consequently it is important that members of diocesan synod and general synod report back to deanery synods on a regular basis Forum for discussing issues affecting local communities Issues may affect a whole community that spreads across several parishes. Deanery Synod and Chapter gives the opportunity for those parishes to discuss together issues that affect their overall community For example, Battersea Deanery Chapter discussed the issue of whether or not pole-dancing might be allowed at the local nightclub at Clapham Junction. The chapter s objections, amongst others, were successful as the local magistrates turned down the club's application. January 2004 Page 6

8 3. SIZE OF DEANERIES IN SOUTHWARK 3.1 The current situation The 28 deaneries in the diocese range in size from Lambeth (5 parishes, 1.83 square miles, and 46,644 population) to Reigate (23 parishes, square miles, and 109,095 population). Further deanery statistics may be found in Appendix 8. (Note: a parish may contain more than one place of worship.) The questionnaires returned indicated a number of commonly perceived strengths and weaknesses in the way that the deaneries in the diocese work. A full analysis of the questionnaires is found in Appendix 4. This was reinforced by input from various individuals and groups (see Appendix 2) The following sections concentrate on particular aspects of the deanery identifying the perceived strengths and weaknesses of deaneries in the diocese and making recommendations for action. Lewisham Archdeaconry 1 Charlton (9 parishes) 2 Eltham & Mottingham (9) 3 Plumstead (9) 4 East Lewisham (14) 5 West Lewisham (9) 6 Deptford (7) Southwark Archdeaconry 7 Bermondsey (7) 8 Southwark & Newington (11) 9 Camberwell (8) 10 Dulwich (7) Lambeth Archdeaconry 11 Lambeth (5) 12 Clapham (8) 13 Brixton (8) 14 Streatham (9) 15 Merton (18) Wandsworth Archdeaconry 16 Battersea (9) 17 Tooting (11) 18 Wandsworth (12) 19 Richmond & Barnes (10) 20 Kingston (13) Croydon Archdeaconry 21 Croydon North (12) 22 Croydon Addington (9) 23 Croydon Central (10) 24 Croydon South (10) 25 Sutton (14) Reigate Archdeaconry 26 Caterham (9) 27 Godstone (13) 28 Reigate (23) January 2004 Page 7

9 3.2 Issues The wide range of deanery sizes has highlighted a number of issues amongst the responses to the review group: Geographical factors and transport links Geographical factors (including relationships to local communities) and transport links are crucial. Small deaneries (e.g. Lambeth) are easy to get around with most parishes being within walking distance of each other. However, large deaneries have difficulties if venues for meetings are not on convenient transport links, or within easy reach of them. The Rural Dean of Merton told the review group that if a synod was held in Mitcham, then people from Wimbledon were unlikely to attend and vice versa Availability of cover for clergy The deanery provides a pool of clergy to cover for colleagues at various times (e.g. vacancies, sabbaticals, etc). It is often (but not always) the role of the Rural Dean to arrange such cover. Very small deaneries may find that the number of clergy available is limited although this will depend on other factors. For example, Lambeth Deanery has additional clergy available from Lambeth Palace and the mission organisations whose headquarters are in the deanery Difficulty of finding representatives for boards and committees. The memberships of certain diocesan boards and committees partly comprise deanery representatives (e.g. the Diocesan Board of Finance has one lay person from each deanery among its membership). Small deaneries may have difficulty in finding representatives to serve on these bodies Unfair representation on boards and committees The bodies that do have deanery representation on their membership normally have equal numbers per deanery (usually one), regardless of size. This is seen to be giving unfair representation in favour of small deaneries Lack of choice for Rural Deans Rural Deans are appointed by the Bishop following consultation with deanery clergy. In a small deanery, the choice will be limited Size of deanery synods The Church Representation Rules state that the total number of members of any deanery synod in the diocese shall not be more than 150 and, so far as practicable, shall not be less than 50: 3. The size of deanery synods needs to be optimised to enable effective discussion and reasoned arguments. If the synod membership is too small then the range of views and experience will be limited; if too large, members may feel unable to relate to one another and unable to participate in discussions. 3 Church Representation Rules Rule 25(6). Church House Publishing. January 2004 Page 8

10 3.3 An optimum size for deaneries? The issues highlighted above show that there are a considerable number of factors that need to be taken into account when attempting to define the optimum size for a deanery. Deaneries need to be large enough to be effective, but not so large that individual members of synods feel overwhelmed. A greater parity of size would lead to fairer representation on other bodies % of the respondents to the questionnaire felt that the optimum size of a deanery is 9-14 parishes. The review group was surprised by the unanimity of the response to this question Having weighed all these factors in the balance, we concur with the overwhelming view of the respondents to our questionnaire that the optimum size of a deanery is 9 to 14 parishes The group received evidence of large deaneries in the Diocese of London where informal sub-deaneries are also formed. Within the Diocese of Southwark, the group heard of experiences in Greenwich, where a single deanery has been split into three deaneries of nine parishes each and from Merton Deanery (18 parishes). At the other end of the scale, the group received evidence from Lambeth Deanery (5 parishes) We concluded that when deciding on the configuration of particular deaneries, the following factors need to be considered: transport links; shape of local communities; availability and numbers of clergy and laity for deanery and diocesan roles; fair representation on diocesan bodies; size of deanery synod membership Proposals for changing deanery boundaries are covered by procedures laid down in the Pastoral Measure 1983 (see Appendix 11). Any proposals for changes should be instigated by the Archdeaconry Pastoral Committees and passed to the Diocesan Pastoral Committee. 3.4 Recommendations We recommend that deaneries should normally comprise of between 9 and 14 parishes We recommend that Archdeaconry Pastoral Committees should consider this report and review the size and boundaries of all deaneries. January 2004 Page 9

11 4. RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES 4.1 Current situation Unlike the Diocese of London, deanery boundaries in the Diocese of Southwark do not usually relate to local authority boundaries (see below). The exceptions to this are Merton and Sutton Deaneries which are nearly coterminous with the London Boroughs of Merton and Sutton respectively. Solid lines show deanery boundaries. Shading indicates local authority areas (as labelled). January 2004 Page 10

12 4.1.2 A group of deaneries that covers an entire local authority area (or falls completely within that area) should be able to develop a close relationship with that local authority and be able to participate actively in consultations and decisions relating to a number of issues e.g. social policies, planning, education, etc Local authorities are recognising the benefit of working with faith communities in their areas and are beginning to recognise that places of worship are community resources that have the potential to be used for much more than worship The current number of parishes per borough is shown below: Croydon 38 Greenwich 24 Kingston 12 (not all of the borough is in the Diocese of Southwark) Lambeth 32 Lewisham 29 Merton 18 Reigate & Banstead 16 Richmond 12 (not all of the borough is in the Diocese of Southwark) Southwark 33 Sutton 13 Tandridge 25 Wandsworth Several parishes (and therefore deaneries) cross local authority boundaries as ecclesiastical and civil boundaries do not often coincide. However, there are a few parishes that fall completely or largely outside of the local authority areas that cover the diocese. These parishes are identified in Appendix 9. These parishes may have difficulty relating to local authorities as the majority of parishes in their deaneries fall within another area. In some places a change of diocesan boundary may be appropriate (as took place in 2000 when Long Ditton, St Mary was transferred from the Diocese of Southwark to the Diocese of Guildford as it was the only parish in Southwark that fell within the Elmbridge District). Parishes that fall into this category may wish to look at ways of working with deaneries in neighbouring dioceses No standard arrangement is in place for contact between local authorities and deaneries. Anglican Borough Deans are vital in providing this contact (list of Borough Deans in Appendix 10) and links between Borough Deans and deaneries need strengthening (see ). It would be helpful to produce a job description for Borough Deans to clarify their responsibilities. 4.2 Recommendations Where a single deanery is not coterminous with a borough, we recommend that a group of deaneries (in practice probably 2 or 3) should cover a single local authority area with each deanery falling completely, so far as possible, within that area. January 2004 Page 11

13 4.2.2 Discussions should be held with parishes that fall outside the main local authority areas covered by the diocese to find ways of helping them to strengthen their links with their local authorities. Parishes should also be encouraged to explore ways of working with deaneries in the neighbouring dioceses Deaneries should strengthen their links with the Borough Deans and ask them to make regular written reports to Deanery Synod and to visit each Deanery Synod annually A job description should be prepared for Borough Deans. January 2004 Page 12

14 5. DEANERY OFFICERS 5.1 The inspiration and motivation for a vibrant deanery life lie to a significant extent with the Rural Dean and Lay Chair and this dynamic relationship lies at the heart of the deanery structure. This should lead to a positive expectation of certain qualities in the Rural Dean and be reflected in the job description. The same should be true for the Lay Chair. 5.2 Following the Bridge Report, General Synod published the booklet Good Practice in Deaneries (GS Misc 639) which gives helpful guidance and examples of good practice from around the country. 5.3 Rural Deans The office of Rural Dean is ancient; it appears to have come into being during the reign of Edward the Confessor in the 11th century. However there are no statutory qualifications for the office of Rural Dean and no national job description beyond that laid down in Canon C23 (see appendix 12) although the Handbook for Rural Deans prepared by the Diocese of Southwark contains a job description. The first part of the title itself no longer reflects the diversity of the area covered by the Diocese of Southwark. Several dioceses have adopted the title of Area Dean which the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2000, s12(4) permits The Rural Dean carries the major responsibility of overseeing the running of the deanery. In addition to being co-chair of the deanery synod, the Rural Dean is chair of the clergy chapter, offers pastoral care to the clergy of the deanery, assists the archdeacon when annual inspections are carried out, often arranges cover for regular services and occasional offices when parish clergy are unavailable, acts in the role of sequestrator when a benefice is vacant, and - in varying degrees across the diocese is involved in a variety of deanery or community initiatives and undertakings. All this is on top of his/her work as a parish priest and may be to the detriment of that work Despite having a significant role amongst the local clergy, Rural Deans have no insignia or badge of office to indicate that role when attending functions (e.g. inductions), Although a handbook for Rural Deans exists, there is no formal induction training available within the diocese to equip them for the role. In the past, training has been organised on a south-east regional basis, but this no longer takes place. Training should be made available to Rural Deans and Lay Chairs that includes guidance on how to make synod meetings successful (e.g. advice on preparing agendas, choosing venues, etc) The success of a deanery depends greatly on the Rural Dean. They are key people in the management and care of the Church, and they should be selected, trained and equipped for the role. January 2004 Page 13

15 5.4 Lay Chairs The Lay Chair, together with the Rural Dean, is responsible for overseeing the work of the Deanery Synod. However, there is no job description As with Rural Deans, a handbook does exist, however this one is very old. Also there is no induction training for Lay Chairs (see above) Despite having a significant role within the deanery, Lay Chairs have no insignia or badge of office to indicate that role when attending functions (e.g. inductions). It is important for Lay Chairs to be recognised in their role. A common badge of office would strengthen the lay dimension of shared leadership with the Rural Dean. 5.5 Deanery Administrators and other support Some deaneries appoint administrative staff to assist the Rural Deans and Lay Chairs. Diocesan grants for deanery support ceased in the early 1990s. Various ways have been found to finance such work (e.g. parish contributions; recent money from the Church Commissioners for mission; use of a bishop s discretionary post). For example: Merton Deanery has a part-time paid administrator and each church makes an annual contribution of 25 towards the cost of running the deanery. This is an example worth following more generally. 5.6 Recommendations The title of Rural Dean should be changed to Area Dean New Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be given formal induction training. The Board of Training for Ministry should be asked to consider how this could be delivered A job description should be prepared for Lay Chairs. The role of Lay Chair should be strengthened. There should be a commissioning service for Lay Chairs A new combined handbook should replace the existing separate handbooks for Rural Deans and Lay Chairs Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be provided with an identical badge of office Deaneries should be encouraged to appoint administrative staff to assist the Rural Deans and Lay Chairs. Each parish should pay a contribution in proportion to parish share (i.e. the quota) towards the cost of deanery administration and support A copy of the booklet Good Practice in Deaneries (GS Misc 639) should be provided for all Rural Deans and Lay Chairs with additional copies being provided to new Rural Deans and Lay Chairs when appointed. January 2004 Page 14

16 6. ELECTIONS OF LAITY TO DEANERY SYNOD 6.1 Current situation The number of lay people elected from a parish to Deanery Synod is calculated using the following table: Electoral roll numbers Number of lay representatives 25 and below upwards The table has been agreed by the Diocesan Synod in accordance with Rule 25(2) of the Church Representation Rules (see Appendix 13) The current arrangement is weighted in favour of smaller parishes. This is a deliberate decision by diocesan synod that dates back to before The majority of respondents to the questionnaire were in favour of the present system continuing In the case of a parish with only one representative, it can be daunting and lonely for that one person attending a synod meeting, especially for new members. There is also no representation from a parish if that single member is unable to attend. The Review Group wished to recommend that the table should be modified to provide for a minimum of 2 lay representatives per parish. However, this is not permitted under Rule 25(2) of the Church Representation Rules In multi-church parishes (e.g. some team ministries), there is underrepresentation as such units only count as one parish. The General Synod is considering an amendment to the Church Representation Rules providing that a diocesan synod, in deciding numbers to be elected to deanery synods, should have regard to the number of parish churches or districts in each parish. 6.2 Recommendations The means of calculation for the election of laity to deanery synod should remain unchanged The diocesan General Synod members should be asked to support the suggested amendment to the Church Representation Rules, being considered the General Synod, providing that a diocesan synod, in deciding numbers to be elected to deanery synods, should have regard to the number of parish churches or districts in each parish. January 2004 Page 15

17 6.2.3 The Diocesan Secretary should write to the General Synod Office requesting that the Church Representation Rules be amended to allow a minimum of two lay representatives per parish. January 2004 Page 16

18 7. ELECTIONS OF LAITY & CLERGY TO DIOCESAN SYNOD 7.1 Current situation DEANERY REVIEW GROUP REPORT The number of clergy and laity elected from Deanery Synods to Diocesan Synod is calculated using a formula that allows for a minimum of 3 representatives each from the laity and the clergy per deanery. Details may be found in Appendix 14. The table has been agreed by the Diocesan Synod in accordance with Rule 31(6) of the Church Representation Rules (see Appendix 13) The table is weighted in favour of smaller deaneries and, as with lay representation to deanery synod, is a deliberate decision by diocesan synod However, this arrangement gives disproportionate weighting to smaller deaneries. For example, one deanery with a total electoral roll of 348 elects 3 lay representatives, and another deanery with a total electoral roll of 1947 also elects 3 representatives This situation would be ameliorated by reducing the size of deaneries but a reduction of the minimum number elected per deanery to each house from three to two would also provide fairer representation. 7.2 Recommendations A system that has some weighting in favour of smaller deaneries should be retained The minimum number elected per deanery for each house should be reduced to two. January 2004 Page 17

19 8. PARTICIPATION IN DEANERY SYNOD 8.1 Current situation The responses to the questionnaire and evidence given to the group indicate that the level of participation in the life of deaneries varies widely across the diocese. A reluctance to participate in deanery synods is most apparent among the clergy. There is a need to win hearts and minds over to the benefits of deaneries and proper education about the role of the deanery. A number of factors appear to influence the level of participation in deanery life: 8.2 The influence of deanery synods on the national church Although the Diocese of Southwark does not delegate matters to deanery synods (in some other dioceses, deaneries are involved in matters relating to parish share (i.e. the quota) and pastoral reorganisation), more emphasis is given to encouraging matters to be raised at local (deanery) level and passed up through the synodical system The deaneries are, therefore, a source of motions that can have real influence on the Church of England nationally. For example, motion from a Southwark deanery synod initiated the formal debate on the ordination of women to the priesthood and the Battersea deanery synod promoted the ethnicity survey of church membership. 8.3 The influence of deanery synods on the Diocese Deanery synods elect representatives onto diocesan boards. Many dioceses are making diocesan boards sub-committees of the Bishop s Council, which can lead to parishes thinking that they have no say in the running of the diocese. However, in Southwark, deanery representatives form the majority of the membership of diocesan boards Deanery synods elect members to the six Archdeaconry Pastoral Committees (APCs) (see Appendix 15). The APCs act as sub-committees of the Diocesan Pastoral Committee and have a central role in the discussion of possible pastoral reorganisation in the diocese. Deaneries should be fully involved in such discussions. 8.4 The relationship between deanery synods and PCCs Deanery synod lay members are elected at annual parochial church meetings and are ex-officio members of their parish church PCCs. They should ensure that there is a two-way flow between PCCs and synods as this is the root of the Synodical government system. 8.5 Minority ethnic representation Statistics prepared by the Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns (MEAC) Committee show that, in many deaneries, minority ethnic members of congregations are under-represented on deanery synods. MEAC is working with deaneries and parishes to try to correct this and some deaneries may need to use cooption (subject to the provisions of the Church Representation January 2004 Page 18

20 Rules (Rule 24(7)) - see Appendix 13)) where ethnic representation needs to be increased. 8.6 Reports from General Synod members For members of deanery synods to feel that they are part of the overall structure of synodical government of the Church of England and are able to make a real difference, it is most important that members of General Synod report back to deanery synods regularly At the beginning of each General Synod 5 year term, the members are allocated to certain deaneries (see Appendix 16). It is the responsibility of the members, in consultation with Rural Deans and Lay Chairs, to ensure that they report to each deanery synod on a regular cycle. At present, this does not take place in all deaneries. 8.7 A forum for sharing and learning The deanery (especially in synod and chapter) provides opportunities for sharing experiences (both good and bad) and for interaction and learning for people from all traditions and backgrounds Deaneries should provide opportunities for the voice of young people to be heard in a way that is appropriate to young people New clergy, especially curates, should be encouraged to take part in deanery life. 8.8 Deanery synod as a forum for debate The deanery synod can be a place for stimulating debate and discussion about issues that go far beyond the parish level. Deanery synod attendance and discussion is often at its best when a controversial issue is being considered It is important that synod meetings and agendas are carefully prepared to ensure that they are as attractive as possible to members. This should include ensuring that a comfortable venue is used. It may be preferable to hold synods at one good venue rather than moving it around the churches of the deanery. 8.9 Good Practice Several deaneries produce Deanery Handbooks. The Review Group received copies from Battersea, Clapham and Southwark & Newington Some deaneries organise Deanery Days where parishes get together In some areas, Deanery Synod Standing Committees are responsible for preparing the agenda for synod meetings. January 2004 Page 19

21 8.9.4 As with many roles within the church, people are often reluctant to put their names forward for election to deanery synod. Personal encouragement of suitable individuals by clergy or lay members is often the best approach Deanery synod agendas need to be carefully constructed to include important and relevant issues of genuine concern to attract members to the meeting and make them feel that they are able to contribute Venues for deanery synod meetings should be chosen carefully to encourage maximum attendance. The venue should be warm, comfortable, accessible and close to good transport links Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should make use of the resources provided by the Church House Deanery Group and the Parish & People Deanery Resource Unit as a means of encouraging good practice and increasing interest in parishes Recommendations General Synod members, in consultation with Rural Deans and Lay Chairs, should ensure that they report to each of their allocated deanery synods after each General Synod Deanery synods should be encouraged to consider the role and benefits of deaneries and convey these to parishes Pastoral reorganisation should remain the remit of the Archdeaconry Pastoral Committee (APC) but deaneries should become more involved in the consultation process. Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be invited to APCs for discussions involving their deanery. APC members should be encouraged to report back to deanery synods Deanery synods should encourage the use of co-option to deanery synods to increase the number of minority ethnic members (or other under-represented groups) Deanery synods should provide induction days for new members (similar to that provided for new diocesan synod members) New clergy should be informed of the importance of participating in deanery life and that they are expected to attend chapter and synod meetings. This is particularly important for curates and their training incumbents and active participation in the life of the deanery should be a pre-requisite for a training incumbent. January 2004 Page 20

22 9. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Deaneries in Southwark We recommend that deaneries should normally comprise of between 9 and 14 parishes We recommend that Archdeaconry Pastoral Committees should consider this report and review the size and boundaries of all deaneries. 9.2 Relationship with Local Authorities Where a single deanery is not coterminous with a borough, we recommend that a group of deaneries (in practice probably 2 or 3) should cover a single local authority area with each deanery falling completely, so far as possible, within that area Discussions should be held with parishes that fall outside the main local authority areas covered by the diocese to find ways of helping them to strengthen their links with their local authorities. Parishes should also be encouraged to explore ways of working with deaneries in the neighbouring dioceses Deaneries should strengthen their links with the Borough Deans and ask them to make regular written reports to Deanery Synod and to visit each Deanery Synod annually A job description should be prepared for Borough Deans. 9.3 Deanery Officers The title of Rural Dean should be changed to Area Dean New Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be given formal induction training. The Board of Training for Ministry should be asked to consider how this could be delivered A job description should be prepared for Lay Chairs. The role of Lay Chair should be strengthened. There should be a commissioning service for Lay Chairs A new combined handbook should replace the existing separate handbooks for Rural Deans and Lay Chairs Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be provided with an identical badge of office Deaneries should be encouraged to appoint administrative staff to assist the Rural Deans and Lay Chairs. Each parish should pay a contribution in proportion to parish share (i.e. the quota) towards the cost of deanery administration and support. January 2004 Page 21

23 9.3.7 A copy of the booklet Good Practice in Deaneries (GS Misc 639) should be provided for all Rural Deans and Lay Chairs with additional copies being provided to new Rural Deans and Lay Chairs when appointed. 9.4 Election of laity to deanery synod The means of calculation for the election of laity to deanery synod should remain unchanged The diocesan General Synod members should be asked to support the suggested amendment to the Church Representation Rules, being considered by the General Synod, providing that a diocesan synod, in deciding numbers to be elected to deanery synods, should have regard to the number of parish churches or districts in each parish The Diocesan Secretary should write to the General Synod Office requesting that the Church Representation Rules be amended to allow a minimum of two lay representatives per parish. 9.5 Elections of laity & clergy to diocesan synod A system that has some weighting in favour of smaller deaneries should be retained It is recommended that the minimum number elected per deanery for each house should be reduced to two. 9.6 Participation in deanery synod General Synod members, in consultation with Rural Deans and Lay Chairs, should ensure that they report to each of their allocated deanery synods after each General Synod Deanery synods should be encouraged to consider the role and benefits of deaneries and convey these to parishes Pastoral reorganisation should remain the remit of the Archdeaconry Pastoral Committee (APC) but deaneries should become more involved in the consultation process. Rural Deans and Lay Chairs should be invited to APC for discussions involving their deanery. APC members should be encouraged to report back to deanery synods Deanery synods should encourage the use of co-option to deanery synods to increase the number of minority ethnic members (or other underrepresented groups) Deanery synods should provide induction days for new members (similar to that provided for new diocesan synod members) New clergy should be informed of the importance of participating in deanery life and that they are expected to attend chapter and synod meetings. This is particularly important for curates and their training January 2004 Page 22

24 incumbents and active participation in the life of the deanery should be a pre-requisite for a training incumbent Venues for deanery synod meetings should be chosen carefully to encourage maximum attendance. The venue should be warm, comfortable, accessible and close to good transport links. January 2004 Page 23

25 10. APPENDICES 1. Members of the Review Group 2. Consultations 3. Questionnaire 4. Analysis of responses 5. The functions of deanery synods 6. Useful resources 7. Roles and responsibilities of deanery synod members 8. Deanery statistics 9. Parishes that fall outside the main local authority areas 10. Anglican Ecumenical Borough Deans 11. Procedure for changing deanery boundaries 12. Canon C23 Of rural deans 13. Extracts from the Church Representation Rules 14. Elections to diocesan synod in 2003 agreed scheme 15. Archdeaconry Pastoral Committees 16. General Synod links with deaneries January 2004 Page 24

26 APPENDIX 1 MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW GROUP Chair Kingston Area Woolwich Area Croydon Area Bishop s Council Ven Christine Hardman Mr Norman Allen CBE Rev Canon John Shepherd Mrs Wendy Dibdin MBE Rev Peter Vannozzi Mr Gladstone Redwood-Sawyer Rev Jonathan Willans Rev Anne Stevens Rev Canon Ivor Smith-Cameron Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns Committee Mr Michael Smart Consultants Secretariat Mr David Henwood Mr Brian McHenry Andrew Lane January 2004 Page 25

27 APPENDIX 2 CONSULTATIONS 1 The Review Group met on five occasions to discuss the issues raised. 2 A questionnaire (see Appendix 3) was prepared and circulated to all parishes (incumbents/priests-in-charge and PCC secretaries), rural deans, lay chairs, bishops and archdeacons. The analysis of the returned questionnaires can be found in Appendix 4. 3 The Group sought the views of the Diocesan Pastoral Committee, the Bishop s Council and a meeting of lay chairs. 4 The Group invited the following to attend a meeting to give their personal insights into the working of deaneries: Revd Canon Richard Truss Rural Dean of Lambeth Mrs Betty Percival Lay Chair of Lambeth Deanery Synod Revd Adrian Robbins-Cole Rural Dean of Merton Mr David Robins Acting Lay Chair of Merton Deanery Synod Mr Simon Parton Diocesan Secretary January 2004 Page 26

28 APPENDIX 3 Diocese of Southwark DEANERY REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The Deanery Review Group has been established by the Bishop s Council to review various issues concerning deaneries (see back page for a brief description of deaneries). The Group would welcome your views on specific questions. If you would like to make other comments, please do so. This form may also be downloaded from the diocesan website Whose views do these comments represent? e.g. PCC, Deanery Synod, individual (please specify). 1. The Review Group considers that the particular strengths of deaneries within the diocesan structure are: the deanery synod as a forum for the debate of significant issues (e.g. the ordination of women to the priesthood); a forum for sharing and learning for both clergy (in synod and Chapter) and laity; for building relationships that enable cooperation between parishes; as a conduit from parishes to diocese and from diocese to parishes; the relationship with civic authorities. Do you agree with the Review Group's views? 2. Are there any other important functions of the deanery that you would like to highlight? January 2004 Page 27

29 3. The size of deaneries (the number of parishes and the area covered see back page) varies widely across the diocese and episcopal areas. Do you think that there is an optimum size for a deanery and if so what is it? 4. Do you think that there are any benefits or disadvantages of having deaneries that are coterminous with local authority boundaries (e.g. one deanery or a group of deaneries to be co-terminous to a London borough or an East Surrey district)? 5. The number of lay people elected from a parish to Deanery Synod is calculated using the following table: Electoral roll Number of numbers lay representatives upwards 8 This is weighted in favour of smaller parishes. Do you think that this is appropriate and, if not, how could it be improved? January 2004 Page 28

30 6. The number of clergy and laity elected from Deanery Synods to Diocesan Synod is calculated using the total electoral roll for each deanery. This is weighted in favour of smaller deaneries. Do you think that this is appropriate and, if not, how should it be amended? 7. How do you think laity and minority ethnic groups can be encouraged to participate in the life and work of deanery synods? OTHER COMMENTS THE DEANERY The deanery is an increasingly important element in the structure of the Diocese, providing as it does an intermediate stage between the parish and the wider Diocese. It is formed of a number of parishes and is presided over by a rural dean. The deanery synod consists of a house of clergy (made up of all licensed clergy in the deanery) and a house of laity (made up of elected representatives from each parish). The rural dean, and an elected member of the house of laity of the deanery synod, are joint chairs of that synod. The deanery synod has a responsibility, as the Synodical Government Measure of 1969 puts it, to promote in the deanery the whole mission of the church - pastoral, social, evangelistic and ecumenical. Close to the grassroots of parish life, it can take up local concerns and issues and ask Diocesan Synod and, through it, ultimately General Synod to act upon them. It also provides an arena for debate on matters concerning the whole Church for discussion and decision: the deanery synod is thus potentially an influential part of the Church s government. January 2004 Page 29

31 APPENDIX 4 Summary of responses to the questionnaire, October 2003 Senders identity Summary of responses of questions 1 to 7 Appendix A - Other comments Appendix B - Alternative schemes for number of representatives Appendix C - Deanery sizes - a statistical analysis Appendix D - Graphical representation of data January 2004 Page 30

32 The data analysed consists of 165 responses received at Trinity House by Monday 27 th October Sender s identity Whose views do these comments represent? e.g. PCC, Deanery Synod, individual Responses received : PCC (collectively or on behalf of) 65 Deanery lay member (incl. lay chairs) 37 Other lay individual 24 Incumbent or other parish clergy 23 Deanery synod (collective response) 9 Bishop, Archdeacon or Rural Dean 6 Anonymous 1 TOTAL 165 Question 1 The Review Group considers that the particular strengths of deaneries within the diocesan structure are ( ). Do you agree with the Review Group's views? Responses received : Yes (no further comment) 76 Generally in agreement 63 No comment 6 Generally not in agreement 19 No (no further comment) 1 TOTAL 165 Additional comments were offered by many respondents. Here are the more common ones (inevitably paraphrased in order to group them together) with the number of times repeated: The relationship with civic authorities is poor or non-existent 30 Does not work (significantly or at all) for parish/diocesan communications 20 Deanery functions would be better carried out by ecumenical gatherings, e.g. Christians Together or local Councils of Churches 8 Debate of significant issues only happens rarely 5 Parishes with similar outlook do more together than those lumped by area 4 Lack of enthusiasm for sharing and learning 3 January 2004 Page 31

33 Question 2 Are there any other important functions of the deanery that you would like to highlight? These are the other, actual, functions and strengths suggested by respondents (inevitably paraphrased in order to group them together), with the number of times repeated. Suggestions for activities not perceived to be currently taking place can be found under other comments at the end of the report. Better understanding of neighbouring parishes / part of the wider church 15 Co-ordinating local mission [in whatever sense the term is used] 14 Sharing of best practice (suggestions inc. youth work, parenting classes, lectures) 11 Election forum for Diocesan and/or General Synod 10 Mutual support in difficult times (interregnum, church out of use etc.) 10 Opportunity for Anglicans of different churchmanship to learn from each other 9 Platform for ecumenical and/or inter-faith co-operation 7 Chance to debate issues local to that particular group of parishes (eg rural affairs) 5 Lay members get training (1 mentioned confidence in public speaking) 2 An opportunity for clergy to listen to lay people 2 Context for discussing pastoral reorganisation 2 Sharing physical resources, e.g. sound system 2 To discuss matters referred down from General Synod 1 Church / school relationships 1 Various Deanery Boards (Social Responsibility, Finance, Education etc.) 1 An opportunity for the Bishop to meet reps of several parishes at once 1 Advertising channel for special services, concerts etc. 1 January 2004 Page 32

34 Question 3 The size of deaneries varies widely across the diocese and episcopal areas. Do you think that there is an optimum size for a deanery and if so what is it? Responses received : Particular size for all deaneries * 83 No optimum size or system 29 Current range of sizes is appropriate 10 Generally should be smaller 11 Generally should be bigger 8 Other (see comments below) 10 No comment 14 TOTAL 165 * All but one of these 83 suggested a particular size or small range of sizes for all deaneries. The values ranged from 7 to 50, with a mean of see Appendix C for a fuller statistical treatment. It is possible that some of the larger numbers were intended to represent number of synod members, rather than number of parishes, although one response was minimum 20 parishes and the highest figure was given as 50 churches. A frequently repeated comment was along the lines of Too many, and not everyone has a chance to contribute. Too few, and not enough variety of views is heard. But there was no consensus on what counts as too few or too many. Another common opinion was that size is less important than covering a natural group of communities (or similar) Other individual comments and suggestions Travelling long distances is never popular the closer the parishes the better. Transport links are also important deanery boundaries which look coherent on a map may be less so if the transport corridors are not respected [2 similar comments] The number of benefices also needs to be considered Caterham deanery consists of only two benefices too small for a full exchange of experience [3 similar comments] Too big a deanery may lose sight of immediately local issues Danger of take-over by monolithic large churches [if the weighting system is abandoned] Not so much the number of parishes as size of membership Kingston with about 80 members (50-60 average attendance) is good. [the current scheme] means larger churches feel that synod is out of touch and irrelevant (and one other similar comment) Combined electoral roll of would provide a deanery which would satisfy all functions (1 other respondent also suggested the same range) Possibly equivalent to 1 or 2 parliamentary constituencies, i.e. 25,000 people (rural) or 50,000 (urban) About 30 members (not parishes) feels small enough to get to know each other but big enough to fulfil its functions Consider factors such as the Local Authority areas [avoiding] insensitive mixing of rural and urban parishes a practical limit of 100 members January 2004 Page 33

35 Question 4 Do you think that there are any benefits or disadvantages of having deaneries that are coterminous with local authority boundaries? Responses received : Generally in favour * 71 Generally against * 52 Ambivalent response 26 No comment 16 TOTAL 165 * A few just answered yes or no. Given the open nature of the question these responses are unclear, but are assumed to be in favour or against conterminous boundaries, respectively. Benefits mentioned No. Better relationships with local authorities 12 Liaison concerning social policies, bylaws, town planning, environment etc 6 Co-ordination of church schools (incl. holiday dates) 3 A good basis for ecumenical work with other denominations 2 Individuals would identify with the deanery more readily 2 Boroughs are very important to London residents 2 Reduction of time spent in meetings 2 Getting involved in civic celebrations and events 1 Linking richer & poorer parishes better than the current system 1 Would make life easier for Archdeacons 1 Would eliminate policy conflict within one parish / deanery 1 Disadvantages mentioned No. L.A. areas too big for one deanery per borough * 22 Too much effort required to change boundaries 6 Not only deaneries but parishes often straddle borough boundaries 3 LA boundaries are irrelevant to church needs 3 Some boroughs have a secular mentality and do not like relating to churches 2 L.A.s unaware of church structures 1 Too many tiers of local gov t already 1 This would have to be a National, not a Diocesan, initiative 1 Difficult to work with cabinet style local government 1 GLA and TfL have made London boroughs less significant in recent years 1 Incompatible with making deaneries of equal size 1 * - several of those who thought 1 deanery per borough too big, would welcome 2 per borough. January 2004 Page 34

36 Local Authorities - other comments DEANERY REVIEW GROUP REPORT We remember the former Canterbury diocese / Croydon deanery synod which covered most of the borough and was quite unwieldy. We would not wish church structures to be influenced by political changes in L.A. boundaries This [coterminous boundaries] can lead to being too close. It keeps one on one s toes to have to work with various systems and how different partners operate. Just one partner can lead to too much taking for granted. Clapham Deanery voted for a deanery coterminous with the Borough, to free up cluster groups of parishes which could form and disband as appropriate in response to changing local needs without being part of the formal structure and having to go through frequent pastoral reorganisation. The C of E needs to decide if it is an instrument of government or an evangelistic body. Then we can decide if we want to shadow a local borough A Deanery co-terminous with a parliamentary constituency would be more manageable, but this may involve altering parish boundaries and may not be worth the trouble There were many references (too many to list here) to particular situations where local boundary changes were perceived as necessary to eliminate the situation of a few Southwark parishes in a local borough otherwise covered by a neighbouring diocese. One complex suggestion for complete review of Deanery structures based on Local Authorities (from David Henwood) was ed to Christine Hardman - not reproduced here. January 2004 Page 35

37 Question 5 The number of lay people elected from a parish to Deanery Synod is calculated using the following table ( ) This is weighted in favour of smaller parishes. Do you think that this is appropriate and, if not, how could it be improved? Responses received : In favour of the present system 108 Similar but lower maximum per parish 14 Equal representation for each parish * 8 Pro-rata electoral roll (no weighting) 8 Use AMF not electoral roll 3 Other (see below) 12 No comment 12 TOTAL 165 * Of the equal representation answers, one respondent suggested 2 per parish and two suggested 3; others did not suggest an appropriate number. In addition, 12 respondents (who were generally in favour of the present system) added that the minimum representation should be 2 per parish, to provide cover for absence. Of the other responses, various alternative schemes were proposed - see Appendix B Other comments and suggestions Some [of the PCC] wanted one church, one vote for the laity - applies to Diocesan synod also Should be weighted in favour of smaller parishes, or the deanery may become prey to certain churchmanship Have specific places for the under-25 s There are too many lay representatives better to have 2 for each parish, empowered to cast half the electoral roll in votes. Better to have fewer people who are more spiritually alive, more representative age range and who have the necessary gifts Proportionality is not always the fairest way - some subjects are universal, others impinge differently on rural and urban parishes and where there are mixed communities of culture and belief. Inequality is not appropriate but must only be eliminated by increasing the representation of larger parishes, despite the cost of a potentially unwieldy synod. A parish with an electoral roll of under 25 ought to be subject to re-organization January 2004 Page 36

38 Question 6 The number of clergy and laity elected from Deanery Synods to Diocesan Synod is calculated using the total electoral roll for each deanery. This is weighted in favour of smaller deaneries. Do you think that this is appropriate and, if not, how should it be amended? Responses received : In favour of the present system 87 Equal representation for each deanery* 19 Pro-rata electoral roll (no weighting) 13 Weighted but lower max. per deanery 5 Use AMF not electoral roll 3 Other (see below) 11 No comment 27 TOTAL 165 * None of those wanting equal representation suggested an appropriate number of representatives. 8 of them said that the deaneries should first be made of equal size, thus making equal representation the obvious thing. But 3 respondents (who were generally in favour of the present system) added that the minimum representation should be 2 per deanery, to provide cover for absence. Other suggestions included: Proportional representation rather than direct election 4 One directly-elected representative per parish at Diocesan synod, not by Deanery 3 Diocesan synod members should include local experts on specific issues 1 Deanery representation should be pro-rata number of parishes not Electoral Roll 1 January 2004 Page 37

39 Question 7 How do you think laity and minority ethnic groups can be encouraged to participate in the life and work of deanery synods? Similar comments were offered by many respondents. Here are the more common ones (inevitably paraphrased in order to group them together) with the number of times repeated: Encouraging laity (some of these comments apply to minorities also) Personal encouragement of suitable individuals by parish clergy 21 Deanery activities / decisions need to be promoted in the parish (5 suggested open days or open meetings and 2 suggested inserts for parish magazines) 16 Educate the laity about what goes on in Synods (2 suggest a promotional video) 16 More interesting agendas (some suggested visiting speakers) 15 Synods should discuss issues relevant to individual Christians, not diocesan policy 6 Make synod lay members feel more useful and valued 6 Longer advance notice of meeting dates and/or agendas 5 More welcoming venues and/or family-friendly times for synod meetings (some people here wanted more evening meetings but others found them difficult) 5 More informal approach / synod as a fellowship rather than a committee 4 Invite people with specific skills and gifts to stand 4 Provide training for the laity at Deanery level 3 Emphasise the role of the Deanery in mission 3 Induction for new members, make list of names available etc. 3 Separate meetings for House of Laity (as has already happened) 2 Shorter terms of office (1 suggested PCC members to attend synod by rotation) 2 Individual comments More accessible venues for the disabled Minimise the amount of paperwork Have Deanery Synod on the PCC agenda and make sure it is discussed Area Councils [should] report back to deaneries and parishes Synods need to have more power before lay people will want to get involved Make [Deanery Synod] more socially active Keep deanery synods small January 2004 Page 38

40 Encouraging minorities Avoid token representation of minorities or positive discrimination 13 They need to feel that Synod is relevant to them (as individuals & communities) 7 By being truly inclusive at parish level 4 Change the style of meetings to reflect non-white cultures 4 Quotas for ethnic minorities (at discretion of each synod) 4 Ethnicity is not an issue in our parish - no non-white members 3 Parishes need to be held responsible for arranging proportionate representation 2 One synod rep to specifically advance / research ethnic issues 2 Synod could invite them as observers when relevant issues are being discussed 2 Existing synod members should be willing to encourage members of underrepresented groups to take over from them when they come up for re-election 2 (3 respondents pointed out that young people are an equally under-represented minority within the church and some of the above points apply to them too; and one similar comment about older people) Individual comments on minorities We need to include them but be aware that many minority groups have their own churches for their own style of worship in their own language, which is helping to maintain their culture. Many such groups belong to Churches Together The question on ethnicity in the electoral roll is welcomed but there could have been more explanation of the reasons for it and why it benefits the Church. In general at laity level the Church and ethnicity is a success and there should be more celebration of this It is important that attempts to broaden the membership should not deflect Synod from its main aims (as we have seen elsewhere in the Church) Work to overcome language barriers Better representation will only come when [minorities] get equal wealth and education Relevant and inclusive worship [is needed] at Synod meetings Promotion of Racial Awareness Sunday Diocesan synod needs to debate this issue January 2004 Page 39

41 Appendix A - Other comments Ideas for Deanery activites Suggestions made ( new ideas, at least new to the people making them), as opposed to good things already happening, which are listed under question 2: Social events to help synod members to get to know each other 4 Exchange of preachers between churches within a deanery 3 Pooling of resources (other than clergy / finances), e.g. expensive equipment 3 Building relationship between parish youth groups (1 suggested a football league) 3 United worship services at Deanery level 1 Deanery-based confirmations 1 More involvement in ecumenical activities 1 Contribute to local community by sponsorship (finance & personnel) 1 Other comments - other key issues Issues highlighted by more than one respondent (inevitably paraphrased in order to group them together), with the number of times repeated, were: Deaneries need more influence in Diocesan finances (e.g. Fairer Shares / grants) 7 Decentralise so Deaneries have power to establish local policy 6 Deanery synod is totally irrelevant and could be dispensed with 4 Clergy reps. do not attend regularly enough 4 Deanery Synods need to meet more frequently (but 1 said less frequently!) 4 Deanery Synods need to have more influence over Diocesan Synod 3 Success of synods depends on good chairmanship 3 PCCs do not appreciate the value of Synod (1 suggestion for a promotional pack) 2 January 2004 Page 40

42 Other comments - individual DEANERY REVIEW GROUP REPORT These are just the comments that add something to the summarised ones above. I have grouped them loosely by subject and edited longer mini-essays down to a maximum of 3 lines! Member s experiences of Synod Deaneries seem little more than a nominal concern our reps do not find it a stimulating or interesting experience, whereas years ago those who were reps did To get our deanery to co-operate collectively on anything is virtually impossible I see less co-operation in 2003 than I did 30 years ago when I was ordained If we cannot relate as a small group of parishes, how can we realistically feel something for the Diocese? (and 1 similar comment from a lay person) You cannot build up relationships on only four meetings a year, there has to be more contact. In order to participate effectively in Synod, we need more dialogue Clergy feel part of the Deanery, but laity have little or no concept of being part of a bigger community known as the Deanery. When I joined the deanery synod, I was not sure why I was there. Initiation days should be held for newcomers Deanery synod members should be reminded that people have different views in the discussion on cohabitation my view was considered smug. It was not therefore an open discussion Articulated (sic), opinionated clergy can be very off-putting Big parishes have worldly status and money. This often affects church members judgement. Too large a synod can be intimidating to people who might otherwise participate Clergy can have very little interest in using the Deanery as a proper vehicle for sharing, learning and cooperating, as opposed to competing between parishes laity are not given sufficient respect and involvement and are mostly tolerated by the clergy Example of suspension of livings where the Diocese had [acted] but the Deanery was unaware, leading to parishes not being served The relationship aspect [of deanery synod] is the most useful in many ways. I have found it helpful for working across parish boundaries It needs commitment in advance to making a deanery happen, and determination on the part of all. To go well it needs effort. This, I suspect, cannot be taken for granted Synod tends to be an attachment to the Chapter. This is not appreciated by the laity some feel that everything is cut and dried before the meeting people are not prepared to give time to such meetings Why not combine them? - no need for both As most parishes are represented by volunteers this must be borne in mind when making demands on parishes for extra paperwork and time commitment Deanery synods are geared towards clergy reunions with discussions centred on clergy matters only The clergy act as leaders who must be right. Hard to get anyone to stand. Low turnout at meetings means you have difficulties in arranging an interesting programme In the four years I have been here, the reps from my parish have never spoken at a synod. (from a Rural Dean) Sometimes Deanery Synods scramble around for topics to discuss instead of having the courage to scrap the meeting Issues for debate and vote [should be] available in time for deanery synod members to present and discuss at PCC. Sharing, learning and building would be better achieved if we split into small groups for discussion at meetings. January 2004 Page 41

43 Synod membership and the election process The C of E system whereby committee A elects on to committee B etc. cuts off many people from the decision making process Mainstream political parties do better To say people are elected to synods is absurd It is almost impossible to find anyone to be elected without a lot of arm-twisting. We do not like the franchise for lay Diocesan and General synod members being restricted to members of Deanery synods. We believe a scheme should be devised to enfranchise all who are on electoral rolls and have one [lay representative] from each archdeaconry on General Synod The breadth of the role of the deanery and the variety of debates it engages in makes it very difficult to identify the right sort of person to stand as a member. Often members are either compulsive committee types or just sad I suggest a change of name from Deanery Synod to Deanery Governing Body Provision should be made for representation of retired clergy with Permission to Officiate The size of deaneries A small deanery in terms of electoral roll may represent a very large population of needy, unchurched people. Smaller deaneries often represent less wealthy and confident areas and so need extra representatives If a decision were taken to enlarge deaneries it should be taken after full consultation with both the clergy and the laity in the area concerned If changes to the size of deaneries are contemplated there should be full and proper consultation with parishes The changes made in the Borough of Greenwich in 2001 have given deaneries which made sense and are still viable The role of Rural Deans I am concerned that Rural Deans suffer stress in previous times the parish where the incumbent was Rural Dean used to be allocated a curate. I would like to see this practice restored (this comment from a lay synod member) A large deanery, e.g. 20+ parishes, is too much for a Rural Dean with parochial responsibilities The synod I attended was manipulated by the Rural Dean. Democracy it wasn t. Our Rural Dean runs the meetings well; we feel informed and able to take the debate to PCC The role of Rural Dean needs redefining (2 such comments) January 2004 Page 42

44 The role of deaneries A strong deanery will tend to weaken ecumenical ties, many of which are at a low ebb Where they have a clear mandate is in dealing with specifically Anglican issues. We should be discussing church growth and addressing the causes for church decline The focus on mission must be our main aim, i.e. what can we do to reach the city with the gospel deaneries must see this as the main objective in our great city. A good example of corporate working on a local level is the Regeneration initiative (London South Central) in the Southwark & Newington Deanery The deanery could be a vehicle to get small groups of young people to share their faith with others (and a few other comments in the same vein) We do need to recognise that our mission context has radically changed Sunday trading, breakdown of families, Internet, pluralism (etc.) As such, we need new models for mission and Deanery is a potential forum for sharing vision, encouragement and training. It should be a forum to receive visits from bishops, archdeacons and other advisers so that they can hear first hand the concerns and priorities of the deanery this is important in connection with the deanery s role in advising on pastoral reorganisation There is the potential for deaneries to be more actively involved in questions of pastoral re-organisation Deaneries are a wasted resource in the C of E. They need to be locally based and misison-focussed, and trusted to handle money more than they are now. All denominational structures should be there to support the local church Sometimes it feels that churches and ministers are expected to serve the Diocese rather than the other way round We live in the age of IT and work can be done to communicate more Deaneries should be developed for the Diocese to keep in touch with parishes in well documented dialogue up and down the line copied to congregations to enhance understanding and involvement. Deanery synods cannot make decisions on significant issues for their own deanery; they are only able to pass on resolutions to Diocesan and General Synods which sometimes results in people wondering what they are for. Parishioners give generously of their time and money, but the opaque electoral structure of deanery, diocesan and general synods does leave a taxation without representation feel about what should be a democratic process Deanery Synod should be a meeting of the Churchwardens with the Clergy Chapter. Church-wardens have the care of their parishes at their fingertips and are very committed to their parish church. This would tend to concentrate on the building blocks of parish life (an Archdeacon) There was very little feel [on the PCC] of connection to the Deanery, despite our parish having had Rural Dean and Lay Chair concurrently for a number of years. I fear that the parishes which have a clear and enthusiastic set of links with the Synods are in a small minority [Suggestion for] a Diocesan roadshow visiting parishes, which must place a strong emphasis on what synod actually delivers to parishes, rather than its function as a talking shop Perhaps Synod should consider what it is delivering before mounting a roadshow January 2004 Page 43

45 Do we really need deaneries? For The deanery is a vital unit and needs strengthening, by giving it a greater role in working out Fairer Shares and pastoral reorganisation With the likelihood of increasing sectional affiliations and loyalties within the C of E, the need for a place where parishes with varying outlooks can listen to one another is obvious Although the parochial system was set up centuries ago by the Normans it has become the sole concern and focus of many in the church today. We need a greater sense of mutual responsibility and interdependence within the Church - and against The Bridge report missed a golden opportunity to pull the plug on deanery synods let s stop meeting for a year and see if we are any the worse for it. We have no faith in the process as a genuine conduit for the free flow of informed opinion from the grass roots in ways which will influence anything Deanery synod adds very little value to the life of the church More would be achieved through techniques used in other organisations. Larger parishes need more representation, but they are often so busy getting on with building up the Church that they don t have the time or patience with a talk shop that often does not appear to do anything that builds up the Church or extends the Kingdom The Deanery is quite useful as a unit for clergy chapters. Otherwise it has very little value. It occupies time, resources and energy disproportionate to any benefit which accrues an important example of the overgovernment and bureaucratisation of the C of E (the respondent, an NSM and former synod member, expanded at length on this theme) It doesn t have much power, e.g. the last debate rescinding Act of Synod - the Diocesan Synod voted, but Deanery votes didn t seem to count I have not yet heard a good reason for keeping Deanery Synods. Do away with Deanery Synods. When important matters come up, each PCC [would] send 2 reps to a meeting and report back and/or take PCC views forward for discussion. Deanery Chapters would still take place; the meeting of PCC reps could be on their agenda or a separate meeting. The Chapter is the Deanery s strength the reluctance of lay people to offer themselves speaks volumes about the lack of engagement with the process Miscellaneous (not directly related to deanery review) Having a visit [to the parish] from the Chief Executive (Diocesan Bishop) once every few years is not going to give much awareness of an organisation The number of Bishops and Archdeacons should be reduced There are too many churches in some areas rationalize to cut costs and the need for incumbents the church is rather slow in changing its format At the far end of a largely urban diocese, I feel we are often overlooked. Everything seems to happen elsewhere, and speakers begin by saying they have never travelled out so far! I frequently feel we are in the wrong diocese (PCC member of a church in Godstone deanery) Diocesan Synod is a white elephant committee or rubber stamping group. Radical change is needed Subsidiarity should be at the forefront of our minds - devolve power back to the parishes which have been continuously centralized over the last 80 years The questionnaire and Deanery Review Group itself More time should have been given to discuss it [at Deanery synod]. The synod agenda had already been agreed before the questionnaire was received (2 synod responses, and one PCC response, had comments like this) The language used does not help understanding. Even in this questionnaire we have words not in everyday use (co-terminous) Thank you for your work. It is hard for us to make a lot of comment as most PCC members do not have much experience of the Deanery as such. January 2004 Page 44

46 Appendix B - alternative schemes for number of representatives Parish representation on Deanery synod (all membership figures refer to electoral roll unless otherwise stated) (1) 1 delegate per 100 plus 1 extra (except only 1 for parishes <40) (2) 2 delegates per 100 or part thereof (no upper limit) (3) 1 for every 25 up to 4/100, then 1 per additional 50 (no upper limit) (4) 2 for first 125, then 1 per additional 50 (no upper limit) (2 identical suggestions) (5) 3 for first 125, 4 for , 6 for , 8 for >600 (6) 2 for <150; 3 for ; 4 for 300+ [2 identical suggestions] (7) 2 for small parishes and 5 for large ones (small/large not defined) (8) 1 per 75 (no upper limit) (9) 2 for up to 150, 3 for anything over 150 (10) 1 per 50 (no upper limit) (11) 1 for <100; 2 for ; 3 for ; 4 for >500 (12) 1 per 40 up to 160; then 1 per 100 thereafter, max. 7 per parish (13) 1 per 50, with a maximum of 4 Deanery representation on Diocesan synod (1) 2 for first 1250 (total E.R. of deanery) then 1 per 500 (no upper limit) (2 identical suggestions) January 2004 Page 45

47 APPENDIX C Deanery sizes Value Frequency (no. of parishes) (no. of responses) Minimum Maximum Mean S.D Median Where a small range of sizes was suggested, the mid-point of that range was taken. E.G. for the several responses of "about 10-12", a value of 11 has been taken, which explains the peak at this value. January 2004 Page 46

48 Appendix D - Graphical representation of data January 2004 Page 47

49 January 2004 Page 48