by Rt Hon Canon Sir Tony Baldry, who was MP for Banbury (1983 – 2015), Second Estates Commissioner (2010 – 2015) and Chair of the Church Buildings Council (2015 – 2019)
I have some reflections on my time on General Synod having served for eleven years, been Second Church Estates Commissioner for five years, and Chair of the Church Buildings Council for four years.
The Church of England is now made up of a number of Tribes.
For the Church of England to flourish, ways have to be found to enable all of the different Tribes to flourish and we should seek to avoid the loss of energy and damage of the various Tribes conflicting with each other.
Sometimes this will mean having structures which enable different Tribes to do things differently.
So, for example, on the issue of same sex relationships it would appear that it is going to be impossible to persuade Conservatives of anything other than it is sinful.
But for many of us, I suspect most, sin implies choice, but we are not in a position to choose our sexuality. It is what we are.
We cannot go on kicking the issue of same sex relationships down the road. Sooner or later we are going to have to have in place legislation that allows priests to marry same sex couples, or bless same sex marriages at their discretion.
Similarly to the practice which has existed since the 1920s, whereby Church of England clergy at their discretion have been able to marry or bless marriages involving someone who has been divorced.
Nearly a third of a century as a member of the House of Commons, and including eight years as a Government Minister and four chairing a Select Committee, has taught me something about the complexities of the machinery of Government – that Whitehall is running a country, including three devolved Administrations.
Whitehall is simple compared to the complexities of the governance of the Church of England. We have: General Synod, the Archbishops Council, the Church Commissioners, Lambeth Palace, Church House, the National Church institutions – I do not think it would be possible to find anywhere in the world another institution with such labyrinthine governance rules.
If I had a magic wand, I would wave it to summon a former Cabinet Secretary, such as Lord Butler, to review the governance of the Church of England and advise how it could be significantly simplified, with less cost, and less time taken on matters of process to all involved.
I see that there are rumours in the press that the Bishop of Leeds has recommended the merging of the Archbishops Council with the Church Commissioners.
There is an urgent need to simplify the governance of the Church of England and merging the Church Commissioners with the Archbishops Council makes extremely good sense.
Some Parish campaigners seem to have expressed the concern that such a move would be in some way a “coup” by the House of Bishops. They need not have such fears. Such simplification would mean fewer costs and less money spent on administration means more money available to pay Parish priests.
The Church Commissioners are established by Act of Parliament and any change to their status will require an Act of Parliament and I am sure that the House of Commons will have a real interest in the outcome of any such reform not least what will happen to the role of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, which is a Crown appointment and at present the link between the Commons and the Church of England.
Parish priests are the lifeblood of the Church of England and many of the concerns expressed by the current “Save our Parishes” campaign are concerns about the future of the numbers of parish priests in different Dioceses.
The simple fact is that there is a limit to how much one can increase the amount of money given across the country by parishioners and others to support the centralised work of the Church of England.
Every £1 spent on administration and elsewhere within the Church is money that is not available to spend on parish clergy, but the Church of England is an organisation with no fewer than 42 Regional Offices, each replicating many of the same functions.
There is little logic with this.
The Diocese of Oxford – one Diocesan Office – manages to look after three quite populous counties, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, whereas three Diocesan Offices and all their associated costs look after the three counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire.
If we want to ensure the greatest possible amount of funds available to support parish clergy, sooner or later someone is going to consider how the overall administration of the Church of England is made as efficient and as cost-effective as possible.
Any thoughts?