Brief for a Working Group to review the organisation of charges and deployment of clergy

Background

The purpose of this group is to develop a strategic plan for the organisation of our Charges and Groupings and for the deployment of clergy, stipendiary and non-stipendiary, over the next ten years.

The plan should be drafted on the basis that it should attempt to maximise opportunities for growth and minimise decline.

This brief addresses one of the six Priorities for Action identified in the Diocesan Review and its background is set out in the Strategic Review document. Relevant points in the Report include the following:

There are factors at work across our diocese – social, economic and spiritual – that create differing levels of opportunity for growth in different locations and settings.

Those opportunities need to be properly considered in decisions about the organisation of charges and the deployment of clergy, but there is no consistent or coherent policy for such decision-making.

Research evidence indicates that certain approaches to organisation and deployment can have predictably positive or negative effects on growth. For example,

• Team ministries typically achieve worse attendance trends than single-clergy parishes

• As a pattern of ministry, lay ministry without stipendiary clergy tends to lead to a decline in attendance

• One significant change that leads to growth is the planting of new congregations

Research with our clergy revealed a desire for a cross-diocese approach to clergy deployment and use of other skills

The Working Group will also need to take account of the current synodical process in respect of Congregational Status.

Our efforts to address this area of diocesan life will also bring to the surface two significant issues. The first is the traditional independence of our charges and, therefore, the ability of the diocese to design and implement policy. The second is the need to decide where sensible organizational rationalization of charges becomes the management of decline.

Task of the Working Group

2.1. Consider issues and options available for the organisation of Charges and Groupings.
At present we have a number of examples:
single congregation charges – Kirriemuir, St Andrews, St Andrews, Stirling etc
grouped charges – ABC group
team ministry – Central Fife
charges with part-time stipendiary ministry – Kirkcaldy, Elie and Pittenweem
charges with retired clergy – Killin, Tayport
LCM-type ministry – Alloa
This mixture could be celebrated as an example of the Anglican 'mixed economy'. In reality, it is often the result of a 'make-do and mend' approach to decision-making over many years.
The first question is:
'If we had the luxury of a blank sheet of paper, what pattern of organisation and deployment would we adopt in order to maximise growth?'
2.2. Review the present state of the diocese and identify high priority issues
The Group should now move on to look at the Diocese in the light of its answer to the 'blank sheet of paper' question. A number of specific questions and areas will inevitably come up for consideration.

Are the single congregation charges all viable for the future – even with attention having be paid to Stewardship?

How do we resolve the obvious problems of the entire southern Fife area?

What options arise in the A9 corridor, including Aberfeldy and Strathtay?

What do we do about congregations which seem unattached – Newport, Tayport, Killin?

The question of the deployment of clergy is part of the above. The questions which arise here are:

What organisation of charges provides the best prospect of creative and productive leadership from stipendiary clergy?

How do we envisage the development of ministry teams working with those clergy?

2.3. Begin process of planning and consultation about change
This process will produce some immediate changes where those are obviously necessary. It will also produce a strategic plan to be implemented over the next 5-10 years as movement of clergy and retirements provide opportunity.
The key to this is good process. This means that we should not just consult people about changes which the diocese may propose. We should so far as is possible and practicable involve clergy and people most affected in the actual process of identifying and exploring options.

Initial response requested

The Working Group is asked to meet by early September 2007, consider the brief, and request further information from the Implementation Group as required. The Working Group Chair is invited to come back to the Implementation Group on September 11^th make a short (1 or 2 page) outline proposal to the Implementation Group on how the task will be approached. That outline should include an estimate of any resources – human, financial or other – envisaged as being necessary to do the work.

Reporting

The Working Group Chair is thereafter asked to follow a 2-stage approach:

By end November, come back to the Implementation Group with a short (ie a few pages) interim report on progress and emerging conclusions

By end February 2008 present a recommended plan.
This might take the form of a short (c10 page) document and some PowerPoint slides describing the proposals - emerging, tentative and/or firm – together with rationale, evaluation of the financial implications of what is being done or proposed, and measures that can be used to monitor effectiveness.

Additionally, the Group is asked to confer with the Implementation Group at the end of each significant stage of its work.