I am in Eisenach, Germany, for the annual meeting of the Meissen Commission. It is late and I am tired, but as the statement from the Dioceses Commission was issued earlier today, I just make the following comment.
The statement reads as follows:
At its meeting on 26 September the Commission was able to complete its consideration of all the submissions made to it on the draft Reorganisation Scheme for the dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield. It carefully considered the representations made to it, both at this stage and earlier, and has unanimously decided to proceed with a draft scheme bringing all three dioceses together.
The Commission firmly believes that the scheme represents a once-in-a generation opportunity for reinvigorating mission which should be grasped. It intends to issue a revised scheme embracing all three dioceses by the end of October, together with a fresh report which will both address concerns that have been put to the Commission, and set out the benefits to mission that it believes will come from a new single diocese.
The current diocesan map in the region owes more to history than the way these communities are now shaped. The Commission received overwhelming evidence that the Church's structures no longer reflect current social, economic and demographic realities on the ground, and that the Church needs a single diocese to engage effectively in mission with the people and communities of West Yorkshire and the Dales.
The Commission believes that the benefits to the Church's mission and ministry in West Yorkshire and the Dales will only be fully realised by a scheme embracing all three dioceses. They each have their own distinctive contribution to make, and have a part to play in creating something new, rather than recreating an older model.
Chair of the Commission, Professor Michael Clarke, said: “On behalf of the Commission I would like personally to thank everyone who has made representations to us. A revised scheme will be published next month, and all three dioceses will then have a chance to decide whether they share our vision, which has been drawn from our discussions in Yorkshire over the past two years, that the proposals will better enable them to advance their mission to the communities which they serve. The Commission is clear that this represents a remarkable and unique opportunity for the Church of England.”
Notes
1. The Dioceses Commission published a draft scheme to amalgamate the West Yorkshire dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield on 1 November 2010. This followed extensive consultation within the dioceses involved prior to that stage. The statutory six month consultation period on the draft scheme ended on 30 April 2012. Full details of the proposals can be found at http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/dioceses-commission/yorkshire.aspx
2. In June 2012 the Commission decided to proceed with a scheme on the basis that the details would be worked out over the summer.
3. Having decided that there would be a scheme, the Commission, under the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, needed formally to decide whether or not to amend it in the light of the representations made. It plans to issue the details of its revised scheme – together with supporting documentation – by the end of October. It is the Commission's intention that its papers would be accompanied by an executive summary with a pastoral letter from its Chair to parishes. It will inevitably take a little while to finalise the documentation following the Commission's meeting on 26 September, hence the short delay before it can all be issued.
4. The Commission's scheme and its report on it will be submitted to members of the Diocesan Synods of the dioceses affected, so that the Synods can then decide whether or not to support the Commission's proposals. That decision needs to be made by the end of March next year, with the intention that the General Synod would be invited to debate the scheme in July. The earliest any of the proposals could be implemented would be in the autumn of 2013.
The diocesan bishops of the three diocese have made their own responses, mine being as follows:
“I welcome the decision by the Dioceses Commission to go ahead with their proposals for a new diocese for West Yorkshire and the Dales. The publication of the revised scheme next month will provide greater detail which all three dioceses will consider before they vote on the scheme next March. I look forward to this further opportunity to explore how a new, bigger diocese could enhance the work of the church in this part of the country. As we explore the potential, and the pros and cons, it will test our creative vision, prophetic courage and commitment, and will ensure that our eventual decisions are fully informed and made for the right reasons.”
Opinions will differ as to the wisdom of the proposals. I make the following observations:
1. The church's talks radical, but never does it. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the church to take responsibility for being creative – making a diocese that is truly new, and not a merger of three, not an amalgamation of three, and not an aggregate of three. Taking a risk on creating something for the future means taking responsibility for it, even if it doesn't work. But, we expect this of parishes and clergy and we should not fear it when it comes to dioceses.
2. We must consider carefully the implications of the proposals – when we get them in detail – and make wise and informed decisions in March 2013. But we must not make decisions based on fear, risk-aversion, nostalgia, conservatism or self-interest. That is a denial of any hint of Christian vision, theology or mission.
3. Forget the fate of bishops. Two will retire. I took on Bradford knowing that acceptance of the proposals would mean me losing my post. That is fine. The church does not owe me a living and it is not about my security. That is irrelevant to any consideration of the merits of this scheme.
We now have until March to weigh up the details and make a decision about the proposals as a whole. There might be deal-breakers. But, until we see the detail, we won't know. So, for now, we need to ask serious questions about our motivation, vision and theological basis for our handling of what will inevitably be difficult proposals. I don't know what I will think until I see the final scheme. But, I can start working on my rationale.
Posted with Blogsy
Nick Baines's Blog 
September 29, 2012 at 11:40 am
Hi Nick. Has the case been made for bigger Dioceses being better than smaller ones? Or is that question still up for discussion? I think it’s great to talk of “once in a generation opportunities” but I wonder whether institutional mergers are really the exciting vehicle for mission that they are being painted as.
Has the commission considered the alternative model of the Dioceses remaining separate, but sharing back-office resources, which is the road we are going down in the South of England?
September 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Charlie, that is a question that has been and is being debated as the process goes forward. Like everything, there are pros and cons. But, there is a strong case for a larger unit comprising smaller and more focused ‘areas’. Clearly, the case needs to be made and debated.
September 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm
OK, so the “areas” would have a local mission focus, and the Diocese would do all the high level stuff. Thanks for the reply.
September 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Historically the areas which comprise the Bradford & Wakefield Dioceses were in the Diocese of Ripon.
September 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm
I applaud the courageous leadership shown by +Nick in embracing the opportunity and addressing the challenges that will come from the recent statement from the Commission and look forward with interest to seeing what the emerging scheme will look like.
I am sure the ongoing debate with other colleagues will be stimulating, creative, frustrating at times but hopefully one in which unity is grown, grace is offered, clarity of vision renewed and the Kingdom advanced. I pray that others engaged in the dialogue will be able to step away from their role, position, security etc in order to see the bigger picture. I am also struck by the word ‘radical’ which I understand to mean to go back to your roots – what an opportunity these 3 Diocese have to reimagine and rediscover the core purpose of the Church and begin to shape how it is lived out within ‘new wineskins’ To see beyond the Church and her structures as we currently receive them in order to gain a new Kingdom perspective of the possibilities of what may emerge by embracing this moment to return to our core purpose not to build churches but to grow disciples of Jesus Christ, to break free from human constraints and to step once again into the Divine purposes of God for the people of West Yorkshire and the Dales. Excitiing times!
September 29, 2012 at 5:48 pm
But the reality on the ground in Ripon, Ken, is that, despite its West Riding roots and episcopal history, it is a North Yorkshire community these days, and ‘community’ has to be the driver for mission here I think. Bolting the western Dales above Bradford onto a Ripon ‘mission-area’ does little for mission as it ignores the reality of these communities: for significant parts of the year, you can’t drive between the two areas (without going a very long way round via Bradford and Leeds) due to bad weather and poor road links. On the other hand, the deaneries to Ripon’s west (e.g. Mowbray, North Ryedale) are distant satellites of York and could be better served by a specialist rural mission centre based in a Ripon diocese under a Bishop of Ripon.
The Ripon and rural parts of this reorganisation doesn’t look very missional to me yet – but I hope to be reassured by the ongoing discussions.
September 29, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I am finding it hard to embrace how it will help us in Ripon. But as I am very peripheral to any Church/Cathedral community I have little voice in the matter, and just see it as geographical politics.
October 2, 2012 at 10:23 am
This proposed diocese will be dominated by Leeds to the detriment of the rest of the area, as has happened with economic regeneration. Bradford has more in common with the towns to the South and West such as Halifax, Brighouse and Huddersfield. This gives the basis for two different dioceses which would sever the area better.
October 4, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Others have said it endlessly that form follows function. If this is about mission then the issue is will a ‘denominator’ as big as an enlarged diocese help or hinder. As I rarely see the benefit of any diocese but I do see the benefit of a church working in a community I am naturally sceptical that an enlarged diocese will do any good except add a deep layer of complexity. If this is about cost saving then rarely has any merger produced savings – that is an empirical fact!
I do see value in a team experts offering their services to support mission whenever they are needed. We do need to use commercial and social skills to assist eg social networking platforms, and experts could be of enormous assistance. But the essence has to be making meaningful any sort of belief in God to younger people who have deserted the church in their droves.
Let the debate continue but let’s not be distracted by a merger of dioceses.
October 5, 2012 at 8:28 am
peternevill, this is not – and never has been – about saving money; that is a side issue. There is an argument that a larger diocese, broken into episcopal areas, would give the flexibility and scale needed to provide the sort of services you outline. Complexity has to do with clarity of communication and simplicity of process – which has little to do with size. Finally, this might sound a bit nuanced, but it matters: this would not be a ‘merger’ or amalgamation of three dioceses – it would be the dissolution of three and the creation of an entirely new one. Let the mission continue while the debate goes on about the plumbing.
October 11, 2012 at 10:38 am
[…] and most seriously, three dioceses in the north of England have not been merged and finance is not the driving factor in proposals to merge three dioceses. In […]
November 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
The detailed report is now out. Annual savings between 0.7m and 0.8m. Of course its about the money
November 1, 2012 at 5:04 pm
David, you are factually incorrect. Financial savings might be welcome, but they didn’t drive this at any point. In fact, money has been put in to the process thus far.
November 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Nick, You have doubtless been to many meetings on the subject. Without this inside knowledge, I can only comment on the documents produced by the commission. The document on finance is not only longer but better prepared and more carefully considered than that on mission, Finances are considered, mission an opportunity for someone else to grasp.
Incidentally, i believe you comments on the timing in the T&A http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10014052.Details_revealed_of_Yorkshire_dioceses_reshuffle/?ref=rss are a little optimistic. There are three diocesan synods and a general synod in July 2013 before the scheme can be said to be accepted in principle. Will all these votes be yes or no or will amendments be possible?
What do you feel about the use of KPMG and PWC, in view of their role in tax avoidance?
November 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm
David, the Commission is treading a fine line here. They do not wish to tell us what our mission ought to be, but to propose parameters in which that mission might be developed. Some people want the Commission to spell out every detail (and then would condemn them for interfering!), whilst others want as little detail as possible on the grounds that shaping that mission ‘up here’ is for us to do.
The financials are also possibly a hostage to fortune as it won’t be clear for a while what the real costs/savings might be. But that is the nature of the rather odd beast we are dealing with here.
You are right about the timings – I wasn’t aware I had said anything different. The Diocesan synods vote on 2 March 2013. If all three consent, it will automatically be referred to the General Synod in July 2013. If one diocesan synod votes against, it becomes the responsibility of the Archbishop of York to decide whether to put it to the General Synod anyway. If it does go to the General Synod in July 2013 and gets the vote, the Scheme will probably receive an Order in Council in October/November 2013. Implementation would begin soon after, but would take a couple of years to complete.
Regarding the choice of accountants, I am not sure. Would we find any firm that was clean? I take your points in your previous comment and note that the ‘avoidance’/’evasion’ distinction remains a point of debate.
November 12, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Regarding the choice of accountants, I am not sure. Would we find any firm that was clean?
Yes, you would. But you would need to eschew the Big 4, simply because what makes the Big 4 dodgy is that they play both ends of the game. Having a firm with one team auditing your books while another team advises you how to mislead the auditors is a rather obvious conflict of interest.
November 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
The essence of the Big 4 is that they are… big. This means they deal with virtually all household names and quoted companies. The Next 10 work in much the same way as the Big 4 when dealing with companies dealt with on other markets. The only difference is as you move down the scale advisory and compliance matters are more likely to be dealt with by the same partner. Auditing standard are maintained my such measures as second partner review and documented procedures. It would be a pity to waste the knowledge gained through and audit by not using it for management advice
November 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
[…] & Leeds and Wakefield will vote next March on whether to dissolve in order to create a new Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. Such a step might be new for the Church of England (what isn't?), but we could learn from the […]