LLF - The poor will always be with us

This is the fourth in a series of blogs offering different perspectives on the current crisis.

Over the last couple of years in General Synod there have been many powerful speeches around the problems with Prayers of Love & Faith, in terms of both content and process. Issues of basic legality, absence of doctrine, absence of provision and no meaningful guidelines have all been raised, and this is before one looks at the deliberately opaque and obfuscating approach taken by the Bishops.

However, sometimes things can slip beneath the radar which might be worth some extra attention. One of these relates to the questions asked by Jonathan Macy (Southwark) about how Team Ministry would work in the new PLF landscape.

Why is this important? Well, Teams are invariably accidents. Accidents of geography and poverty, where lack of money forces Dioceses to collapse churches together. Inherently, therefore, Teams are also theological accidents where there may, or may not be, agreement on doctrine and practice. This means that in the new terrain created by PLF, it is a terrain scattered with landmines. And they are landmines for the churches with the fewest resources to survive the impact. This is why it is important.

Jonathan Macy is a vicar on a deprived South East London Estates working in a Team context, he is Chair of Southwark DEU, and also a part of the Anglican Futures Ministry in Deprived Areas group. He has considerable experience and understanding of the issues. He is also a member of General Synod and twice he has asked + Martyn Snow written questions about how PLF will work in mixed theological contexts, and both times there have been few, if any, worthwhile answers.

Q 17 (Feb 2024) What protections have been put into place for congregations in a Team who uphold the doctrine of the Church and therefore are not willing to use the Prayers of Love and Faith when a Rector and wider PCC is strongly of an opposite opinion, and in the event of a vacancy how can the subsequent appointment of a new incumbent for the team honour and uphold the congregation who holds that different view? [1]

Q 62 (July 2024) There are two churches served by one stipend. They are in vacancy. One church demands a clergy person who must do PLF, and one church demands a clergy person who must not do PLF. How is the parish profile written, how is the conflict resolved, and what provision will be given to the church who will have a clergy person whose ministry goes directly against what they want and need? [2]

Not unreasonable questions, and for anyone ministering in areas of poverty, these are neither unreasonable nor empty questions, but questions that are potentially existential.

Single stand-alone (ha!) parishes, especially those with money, have the resources and strength they need to stand against Diocese. There is a danger that these are questions that would pass them by, unnoticed, as they have little little interest in the outcome. But for those doing turn round ministry and ministry in areas of deprivation, fully dependant on the goodwill of others and nearly always forced into relationships with churches they do not easily sit with, it is crucial these questions are addressed and answered, and done so with workable, functional and applicable clarity. However, on both occasions the response from + Martyn has been thin, and the subsequent follow up questions (even mentioning echo-chambers and unicorns) thinner - see [1] and [2].

Nothing produced in the PLF paperwork addresses the REALITY of how this works in Teams. Nothing.

Two thirds of the Church of England are in some kind of team, or plural benefice context, as I have said, not through theological agreement, but through crude financial pragmatism. You have NO choice who you get lumped with, if you are poor.

What does this say? Foremost, it says that the senior leadership of the Church appear to have spent no time thinking about whether what they want to do will actually work in two-thirds of the Church they lead, the two-thirds who are the poorest and most vulnerable. Think about that. If a secular organisation failed to take into account how a policy would work for two-thirds of its base, especially on a contentious issue, heads would most certainly roll.

It seems not in the Church of England.

For the orthodox in Teams and Benefices, you end up with a postcode lottery, where the attitude of the Rector (Team Leader) shapes everything you can and can’t do. If you have a truly liberal Rector who honestly believes in “live and let live” so you can act with freedom, even to the point of asking for external oversight and confirmations (as per + Ebbsfleet), this might be workable. But what if they are not helpful? What if the Rector is ideologically liberal? What happens if your helpful Rector leaves and is replaced by an ideologue?

It seems the only answer that the Bishop of Leicester has is to find a way to "walk together" and when there is a stroppy Rector in an obstructive Diocesan structure it is unlikely that the Pastoral Guidance will be able to protect anyone's conscience in the long-term.

So, what’s the answer? …

Jonathan said in another debate: “Those churches with fewest resources face the most difficult and complex needs.”

Think about that? It makes the answer far more complicated - it is not simple or mono-dimensional.

Brutal honesty says that jumping ship and leaving the Church of England is often not an option for the poor. Easy for the rich, but literally terminal for the poor. The focussed dedication one needs to minister in areas of poverty means ministers are not disposable, so those serving in such areas stay and pray for provision, and that will (currently) only be from the Diocese – whatever that looks like.

Principles are easier to hold when you have the wealth to underpin them.

How many Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) or Anglican Convocation in Europe (ACE) or similar Anglican Network in Europe (ANiE) churches are not financially sustainable? How can a poorer church rely on 'comissioned' ministers that do not come with a stipend?

Any settlement needs to recognise that churches in areas of poverty must either be financially subsidised, or in some cases, richer, gathered churches must proactively tell members NOT to drive past poorer churches to get to theirs – they must actively fight consumerist attitudes to church (even though it gets them the tithe) and send people away to closer, poorer, places.

Hard words I know, since some wealthier churches show wonderful Gospel generosity with money, resources and people – hallelujah! – but for gospel ministry to survive in poorer areas this must become deep in the evangelical culture as opposed to the random geographical or relational accident it seems to be now.

The poor will always be with us. What will we do with that post PLF?

Over to you …

[1] The Bishop of Leicester responded by explaining how a Team works, something of which Jonathan was well aware, so he asked a verbal question about legal protection, to which the answer was, "I want to say very clearly: we have stated again and again that there will legal protections both for those who feel they can use the Prayers of Love and Faith and those who feel they cannot. I acknowledge that within teams it is particularly complex, but we are going to face that complexity again and again and again in all sorts of different areas, and we are going to have to find a way of living with difference on this. We cannot legislate for everything."

[2] This time the Bishop of Leicester challenged the use of the word 'demands', saying Teams would need to find ways to work together and suggested the forthcoming Pastoral Guidance would offer ways to handle conflict, andthat the Archdeacon would then have a key role to play.

---

Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans.

The next Ministry in Deprived Areas online gathering is

17th September 2-3pm

You can find out more here.