Andrea Mulkeen
Acting Pastoral and Closed Churches Secretary
7th August 2018
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Theale and Englefield (Diocese of Oxford) Proposed Pastoral Scheme
1. The Church Commissioners have now carefully considered 107 representations (including four joint representations) against, 18 (including five joint representations) in favour and four out-of-time letters of comment relating to a draft Pastoral Scheme providing for: the dissolution of the benefice of Theale and Englefield; for the creation of a new benefice of Theale comprising the area of the parish of Theale, appointment of its first incumbent, her place of residence and the future patronage arrangements for the new benefice; for the creation of a new benefice of Englefield comprising the parish of Englefield and the future patronage arrangements for that new benefice.
2. The Commissioners have come to the decision that the Scheme should proceed notwithstanding the representations made against it and the following statement indicates the reasons for their decision.
Background
3. The representations against the draft Scheme came from: the Priest-in- Charge of the benefice of Theale and Englefield; the Associate Minister at Holy Trinity, Theale; the churchwardens and PCC of Theale (some members of which had also wrote in their personal capacities); the Clerk to Theale Parish Council; the Councilor for Theale (West Berkshire Council); and residents, parishioners and members of the congregation of Holy Trinity, Theale.
4. The representations in favour came from: the retired house-for-duty Assistant Curate/Resident Priest at Englefield; one of the two Patrons of the benefice; the Chair of the Englefield Charitable Trust; the Churchwardens of St Mark’s, Englefield; a member of Deanery Synod and
Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct Line: +44(0)20 7898 1780 Switchboard: +44(0)20 7898 1000 Fax: +44(0)20 7898 1873 Email: [email protected] DX: 148403 Westminster 5 Website: http://www.churchofengland.org/ The Church Commissioners are a registered charity (number 1140097).
the Deanery Pastoral and Standing Committee; and parishioners and members of the congregation of St Mark’s, Englefield.
5. The draft Scheme carried the following “diocesan rationale” as a footnote:
“There had been a troubled relationship between the parishes of Theale and Englefield which goes back 40 years. In 1981 a memorandum was drawn up between the then Bishop of Reading and Sir William Benyon MP to detail the legal situation and working arrangements required of a new joint benefice brought into being by a Pastoral Scheme. The expectation then was that although legally the incumbent of the benefice (living in Theale) was responsible for Englefield, the day-to-day running of Englefield was entrusted to a Resident Priest. Full cooperation between the priests and parishes was expected and was encouraged.
Twenty years later in 2001, in the light of experience, a further memorandum was written by the Bishop of Reading at the time emphasising that for such an unusual arrangement to work well, openness, trust and good personal and professional relationships between the two parishes and their clergy was vital. Despite the two memoranda, the lack of clarity inherent in these arrangements had proved to be unhelpful. Relationships over the 40 years had not been easy and precious time and energy had been expended in resolving ongoing disputes and tension; the gospel had not been well served.
Since good relationships cannot be imposed, the Bishop considers that it is time to consider a legal solution which will enable both parishes to flourish. In light of experience the Bishop is convinced that the separation of the parishes of Theale and Englefield, and the creation of two new autonomous pastoral units is the solution which will lead to the flourishing of both parishes. The proposed new benefice of Englefield (comprising the parish of Englefield), entirely responsible for its own affairs, will be able to concentrate on being a gathered church offering pastoral care and worship for people in Englefield and beyond.
The proposed new benefice of Theale (comprising the parish of Theale), will continue to develop and build on its own local mission opportunities and initiatives - family church, mothers and toddlers group, work in two schools, ecumenical Alpha and so on. These opportunities, and impressive progress in recent years, had already been recognised by the Deanery. The Deanery is committed to supporting the new benefice through the continued provision of full-time ministry. Work had already begun within the Deanery and in conversation with the Diocese on the financial arrangements to make this possible.
It is intended that the Revd Nicholas Wynne-Jones, currently Assistant Curate in the benefice of Theale and Englefield, will be appointed Assistant Curate of the new benefice of Englefield and continue to live in St Mark’s House, a property owned by the patron. Because he is over 70, he cannot be made incumbent and so the Bishop will consult on the immediate suspension of presentation to the proposed benefice of
Englefield.”
Summary of the main points in the representations against the draft Scheme 6. Those against said that: • The two communities of Theale and Englefield were intertwined and worked “better together” in terms of mission • Theale was a relatively poor parish and would find it difficult to increase its parish share to the level which would be required of it in a separate single-parish benefice; • In terms of process, the proposal was driven by a small group on Englefield PCC and had been flawed.
7. They said that residents of Englefield, as opposed to the gathered congregation of St Mark’s, looked to Theale for shops and other facilities; Englefield Primary and Theale Comprehensive Schools had pupils from both parishes; and the churchmanship of St Mark’s did not suit some residents of Englefield with young families. They said that relationships between the two PCCs had been good at times in the past; that there were still good relationships between many residents of the two parishes and a desire by most at Theale and some at Englefield to work together. In their view the difficulties at the PCC level arose from a small group of Englefield parishioners who wished the parishes to be separated and the immediate cause of the current situation was Englefield PCC’s decision to reduce its contribution to the benefice’s parish share (from 48% to, initially, 29% and then to 11%), against the urging of the then Archdeacon and the Diocesan Registrar and Diocesan Finance Officer.
8. The representors against believed that the financial challenge of increasing the parish share for Theale as a separate benefice would deter applicants for the incumbent’s post and would distract from ministry and outreach. They said that a satisfactory financial support package from the Diocese and Deanery to enable the share to be met had not been agreed. Many were concerned that if the financial target was not reached and sustained Theale may lose the full-time incumbent, which it needed, and Holy Trinity church may then close. Some said that the Church of England as a National Church operated on a mutual support basis and that Englefield should maintain its support of Theale as a matter of social justice. If not, they thought that the Diocesan or Deanery parish share system should be amended to take more account of ability to pay.
9. They said that the process had been flawed by the Bishop of Reading announcing his recommendation before a meeting to hear the views of both PCCs had been held and that alternatives, such as a team ministry or a “footprint” parish for St Mark’s or making it a proprietary chapel, had not been considered.
Summary of the main points in the representations in favour of the draft Scheme
10. Those in favour said that:
• There were no natural links between Englefield and Theale; • The current structure was unnecessarily complicated and hindered, rather than enhanced, the objective of both parishes, which was mission; • Separation will have no financial impact on either parish and the funding requirement would remain identical whether or not the benefice was dissolved.
11. Englefield’s congregation overwhelmingly supported the dissolution. They said that the parishes had a strong, but different, sense of mission and churchmanship: over 80% of the electoral roll of Englefield lived outside the parish, the Deanery and, in some cases, the Diocese and, due to the demographics, mid-week joint activities were unlikely ever to attract large numbers.
12. They said that there had been a troubled relationship between the two parishes in the benefice which was not conducive to mission. The benefice’s clergy, past and present, had all failed in their attempts to bring the parishes closer together, despite much effort, and the effort wasted on profitless internal matters had drawn focus and energy away from the proclamation of the gospel and the furtherance of Christ’s kingdom. They considered that that had been an unhelpful deterrent when recruiting to the post of Resident Priest at Englefield.
13. In terms of finance, they said that the Diocese and Deanery and Theale PCC had agreed a ten-year financial support plan for Theale. They thought that planned new homes should bring in several hundred extra residents with potential for giving to increase and for Theale’s congregation to grow and flourish as an independent parish.
14. They said that the Englefield PCC had voted unanimously in favour and a petition to the Bishop in 2015 had had 134 signatures in support.
Letters of comment (out of time)
15. Three letters of comment re-iterated some of the points made by those opposing the draft Scheme. One expressed support for the draft Scheme and made the point that Estate churches had a long history within the Church of England and that the proposal was effectively to re-create one for Englefield.
Summary of the Bishop’s views
16. Following normal practice, a copy of the representations was sent to the Bishop of Oxford to seek his comments. The key points made by the Bishop are summarised below.
Background
17. Theale and Englefield were two physical communities separated by the A340 with very different histories and characters.
18. The Bishop thought that because of that, the union of benefices in 1975 may had been ill-advised from its inception, given the steps immediately taken to divert the benefice from the form normally operated by a traditional two-parish benefice with one incumbent. He said that it had never been clear where pastoral responsibility and authority within the benefice lay and considered that that was the underlying problem. Memoranda and letters by three Bishops of Reading had not been totally successful in removing ambiguity and recognised that unity cannot be imposed. He considered that the tensions inherent in the joining together of two parishes of very different natures had consumed vast swathes of deanery, archidiaconal and episcopal resources, and detracted from local mission.
Relationship between the parishes
19. Main points:
• The parishes were better described as working well alongside each other rather than being “better together” and this would be expected to continue if the Scheme went ahead. • Pastoral care and mission would be improved by separating them.
20. The Bishop said that relationships between the different elements of the two parishes had fluctuated over the forty years. The current difficulties may had been triggered by Englefield’s reluctance, as Theale saw it, to contribute towards the cost of the Priest-in-Charge, but lack of clarity about authority and ambiguity about responsibility was the underlying problem. He said that the parishes had largely continued to be as two benefices: the majority of residents in either place did not regard their life as dependent on, or intertwined with, the residents of the other. Englefield St Mark’s widely-drawn congregation had no connection to Theale, nor any desire for one. There was no active relationship between the PCCs, but neither was there personal animosity between them or between the two congregations.
21. He believed that pastoral care would be definitively improved by separating the two parishes, as the accountability of priests for their
parishioners would be clear to all parties. Division would also give Theale a clear focus for its mission energy: the parish had great need, and new houses were expected to be built over the next five years. Englefield did not see any part of Theale as relevant to its mission: the congregation preferred to focus its mission energies elsewhere.
22. He said that the deanery believed that, freed from the present log-jam of misplaced expectations, the parishes may not only flourish individually, but may also discover a new impetus to pursue matters of common interest.
Englefield School
23. The Bishop said that the position of Theale children at the Englefield school would be the same as that of children from Pangbourne and other places and they and their families would in no way be disadvantaged. He said that changes to the governing body may be necessary following pastoral reorganisation, but that would be for the governors and the Diocesan Board of Education to determine.
Churchmanship
24 He said that the current clergy were probably of a more evangelical persuasion than their congregations. While worship at St Mark’s probably had a more traditional feel than St Mary’s, he thought that the pattern of church attendance was unlikely to be affected by the proposals, as benefice and parish structures were an irrelevance to most congregations.
Parish share and finances
25 Main points:
• The Diocese allocated parish share to deaneries; deaneries allocated it to benefices or parishes. Bradfield deanery allocated it to benefices using the diocesan methodology, including an assessment of ability to pay at the parish level; • If the reorganisation proceeded, both new benefices would be asked for an amount based on the ministry and housing costs of an incumbent, plus a proportion of national/diocesan costs, adjusted by ability to pay, weighted by congregation size; • The total will be the same as the amount currently asked of the joint benefice; • The Diocese, Deanery, and Theale PCC all believed that Theale could become self-sustaining over the next ten years.
26. The Bishop provided a table showing the parish share paid by Theale and Englefield since 2011. He said that since 2014 Englefield had been paying share based on deanery calculations of what it would have had to pay if was a stand-alone benefice with no stipendiary minister and with housing provided by the Englefield Trust. That was a decision its PCC had taken
unilaterally as it did not wish to contribute towards the cost of the benefice incumbent, whose services it considered it did not require. The figures showed a drop in the amount paid by Englefield since 2013. At no point was Englefield paying 11% of share, but by 2015 it was only paying 29% of the benefice share requested. The Diocese did not have an opinion on whether Englefield was underpaying share, since share was allocated to deaneries; it was up to deaneries the extent to which benefices were expected to be self-supporting.
27. He said that because Theale was smaller and less prosperous, the amount of parish share asked of it if it became a separate benefice would be less than the amount asked of the current two-parish benefice. Creating two benefices would end the possibility that the parish of Englefield could choose to make a direct contribution towards the costs of the incumbent in Theale, but it had already chosen not to do so since 2011.
28. The Bishop said that Theale was not as affluent as other parishes in the deanery, but it was not seriously deprived compared to others in the Diocese. He said that in November 2017 Theale PCC unanimously approved a ten-year plan to help it become self-sustaining over ten years. That was based on its parish share rising each year by about 4% more than inflation. The Diocese considered that to be achievable and, with the Deanery, had put in place a package of support to enable the parish to become increasingly financially self-supporting and the deanery to balance its books in the interim. He warned that the potential for increased income would not be realised if the parish was focusing its energies on other matters, such as the relationship with Englefield. The dispute did not motivate generosity among the congregation, nor was it attractive to potential members.
Future staffing at Theale
29. Main point:
• The Diocese and Deanery recognised Theale as an area of missional need with likely new housing and were committed to replacing the Reverend Ann Templeman when she left or retired.
30. However, the Bishop pointed out that it would not be easy to replicate Mr Templeman’s service, as it was only available because he was married to Mrs Templeman. He said that the two proposed one-church, one-parish benefices would be small compared to many, but not all, benefices in the Diocese (Theale would have a population of about 2,900 and one priest: about half the benefices in the Diocese had a smaller population per priest ratio). In terms of an incumbent being effectively House for Duty, as would be the case at Englefield, there are sixteen others in the Diocese.
Possible closure of Holy Trinity Theale church
31. There were no plans to close Holy Trinity Theale: any such initiative would come from the parish and not the Diocese.
Process and mediation
32. Main point
• It was regrettable that the Bishop of Reading had said at the meeting in May 2016 that he saw no future for the joint benefice, but that was not his decision to make.
33. The Bishop said that in 2016 an outside mediator had advised that mediation was most unlikely to yield a solution, leading the Bishop of Reading to change the direction of the planned consultation and mediation meeting in May 2016 and make the statement that he did. He said that further meetings between the Archdeacon and PCCs followed and subsequently the Berkshire MPC initiated formal consultation, the latter including s.6 meetings involving representatives of the DMPC, before the DMPC itself made its formal recommendation to the Diocesan Bishop. He thought that further consultation was unlikely to generate a solution that would better further the mission of the Church. He added that the Priest-in- Charge had orchestrated a campaign against the draft Scheme and that he had had to ask her to amend a reference to it on the Theale parish website.
Alternative reorganisation
34. Various alternative pastoral arrangements were suggested but were not pursued.
Furtherance of the Mission of the Church
35. Main point:
• Maintaining the status quo could potentially lock the parties into permanent dispute. Unity cannot be imposed.
36. The Bishop said that after a long period of trying to resolve their differing expectations the DMPC had determined it was time for the two parishes to begin again in separate benefices to refocus their energies on being the people of God. It may not be the highest manifestation of the unity in Christ, but it was to be preferred to, potentially, locking the parties permanently into a dispute which was draining to those involved and unedifying to those who were not.
Summary of further responses from representors against the draft Scheme
37. Theale PCC Standing Committee made the following comments:
Relationship between the parishes
• The Bishop was relatively new in post and had been misinformed about the degree to which the communities of Theale and Englefield were linked. As an additional example it referred to a controversy over the siting of a new Church primary school in Theale.
Process and mediation
• The Bridgebuilders’ mediator had not met any representatives of the PCC before making his recommendation to the Bishop of Reading; meetings between Englefield and senior diocesan staff took place in 2013 without the knowledge of Theale PCC or the Priest-in-Charge and Theale was not invited to explain its objections to the Bishop’s Council; it was not consulted about alternative reorganisation and the draft Scheme should be put on hold until a round-table discussion was held about them; there had been no “campaign” against the draft Scheme; the degree of opposition to it indicated community concern; the website entry amended at the Bishop’s request was agreed by the whole PCC and was changed immediately.
Parish share and finances
• The PCC agreed the proposed financial plan only because there was nothing else on offer; it thought Theale would struggle to fulfil it; it would withdraw its opposition if there was an arrangement for it to receive support equivalent to Englefield’s former 48% contribution to parish share. There had never been the promised round-table discussion of the parish share issue. It had applied for an endowment from the Englefield Charitable trust but to no avail.
Furtherance of the Mission of the Church
• The proposed Scheme would detract from the mission of Theale, Englefield, the Deanery and the Diocese and lessen community between Theale and Englefield.
38. Mr Paul Doyle, former churchwarden and current Deanery Synod representative, submitted an amended version of the Bishop’s table showing parish share contributions and made the following points:
• The reason for Theale’s large share increase in 2017 was the Deanery Treasurer’s decision to assess Theale and Englefield separately. Under the previous calculation Englefield was sheltered by Theale’s relative deprivation; • Income figures for Theale in 2015/16 were distorted by a grant for its church building, which could not be put towards parish share; • Grants from the Englefield Charity Trust in place of former share contributions from Englefield were for mission and could not be applied for share payments.
39. The Reverend Peter Templeman reiterated points made by the Standing Committee and also said that:
• Theale had not been focusing its energies on the relationship with Englefield, to the detriment of mission; clergy and congregation had entirely focused their energies on growth in Theale in discipleship and outreach; • Members of St Mark’s who used regularly to participate in joint benefice initiatives had chosen not to accept invitations to attend events at Holy Trinity.
40. Margaret Elliott could not believe there was anything to gain by separating the two parishes, indeed there was much to be lost. Mr Croker agreed and believed that only a few people wanted the parishes divided.
Summary of further responses from representors in favour of the draft Scheme
41. The Pastoral Reorganisation Sub-Committee of Englefield PCC made the following points:
Relationship between the parishes
• Joint activities in which the two parishes were voluntarily engaged would continue as it was in the best interests of the participants and their communities that they should; the only exception was to have been the governorship of Englefield Primary School which would now change anyway in consequence of the departure of the Priest-in- Charge;
• St Mark’s had an active children’s group and teenagers tended to go to Greyfriars in Reading;
• Englefield did play a meaningful part in the Deanery, having had three regularly attending Synod members, one of whom currently served on the Deanery Standing Committee;
• If the reorganisation did not go ahead, the long-standing structural problems would remain, making the timely recruitment of a successor to the Priest-in-Charge in Theale, and in due course the Resident Priest in Englefield, unnecessarily complicated.
Parish share and finances
• Theale had been unable to cover its ministry costs for over twenty years and had been supported by other Deanery parishes foregoing parish share rebate: for ten of those years the Deanery help (the largest part) was supplemented indirectly by the generosity of the Englefield Charitable Trust. Theale was not within the Englefield estate whereas five other churches were;
• In 2012 the ECT gave notice to both parishes that its support, previously routed via St Mark’s, would in future be available to Theale as a direct grant, requiring an application from Theale, but giving Theale the offer of a further four years of support (of £8,800 pa). That was conditional on Theale presenting a credible plan to achieve sustainability and formally applying for funding for 2015 and 2016. That had been spelled out to the St Mark’s PCC in January 2013, with the Priest- in-Charge copied in. It was not known whether she had shared that with Theale PCC;
• Theale did not present a funding plan for 2015/16 and failed to take up the ECT’s offer of financial support for those two years: the final £8,800 was therefore given to the Deanery Development Fund by the ECT in 2014 and £5,000 was given by other donors from Englefield to that Fund in both 2015 and 2016 to help cover the shortfall in Theale’s contribution towards its own parish share. It believed Theale was unaware of these acts of generosity and will not have taken them into account in its submissions and representations;
• Theale was a parish of average wealth within the Diocese and was not in a deprived area. Its shortfall on parish share was £23,000. If its average voluntary giving was brought up to the average of the Diocese it would add £15,000 income. On a pro rata basis, an expected increase of 30% in its population should produce a further £17,000 by 2027, enabling it to achieve financial viability;
• St Mark’s had made it clear that its contribution for mutual support for Theale would come via any Deanery-wide scheme, in which it had willingly participated for many years. The financial support and plan for Theale would remain unchanged, whether, or not, the Pastoral reorganisation went ahead;
• Theale had made it clear on several occasions that if sufficient finance was on offer it would not oppose the Scheme. After accepting the offer of Diocesan financial help, it had decided to appeal, which cast doubt on the statements that the main objections to the reorganisation were pastoral and theological.
Process and Mediation
• The representations put forward against the reorganisation had been solicited on the back of misleading propaganda about both community and financial aspects.
The sifting group’s decision
42. The case had been examined by the Commissioners’ Mission and Pastoral Committee’s sifting representatives who thought that there were important facts which were in dispute and that the Commissioners were likely to be helped significantly in forming a view on these by hearing directly from the representors. They had also felt that fairness to the
representors required them to test the arguments advanced by questioning them and Diocesan representatives directly, and that it would be of benefit to the representors to attend and participate in a hearing. Given that submissions had been made about the fairness of the process, they felt hat a Hearing would allow representors the opportunity to air their concerns and enable the Commissioners to hear both sides and test the submissions put forward as part of their independent assessment of the contested reorganisation.
The meeting of the Church Commissioners’ Pastoral Committee
43. Noel Hedges, the Reverend Anne Templeman, and the Reverend Peter Templeman, against the draft Scheme; and David Gibbons, Victoria Fishburn and Peter Haig, in favour of the draft Scheme, all attended and spoke to their representations. The Ven. Olivia Graham, Archdeacon of Berkshire and Mrs Alison Jestico, Diocesan Director of Finance, spoke on behalf of the Bishop and Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee and all responded to questions from the Committee.
Oral representations against the draft Scheme
44. The Reverend Anne Templeman began by stating that Holy Trinity unanimously felt that the diocesan proposals would not further the mission of the Church in the benefice of Theale and Englefield: 107 representors (versus 18) had thought so. The mission of the Church would be seriously damaged rather than furthered by the proposals. She said that the nature and purpose of the Church as the body of Christ were at the heart of the debate and the credibility of the Church was at stake. She quoted the Bishop of Oxford from his Lent booklet earlier in the year that the Church was not a club or a society for the preservation of ancient buildings.
45 She said that the Church of England was a Mission-shaped Church defined by the 5 marks of mission. All were more effectively achieved through collaborative working between parishes, as Theale and Englefield had experienced in 2011 and 2012, and would be impaired if there was no such collaboration. New Christians and others in the community were outspoken in their bewilderment that their neighbours did not want to work with them in mission and ministry, especially when the new developments at Holy Trinity - like their successful toddler group, monthly Family Church and the work in the secondary school, were used and appreciated by families who lived in Englefield as well as Theale.
46. The central issue for Theale was mission not money. They believed the Gospel imperatives of love unity and service required them to work collaboratively in what was in part a troubled and needy community. They knew the current leadership of Englefield did not agree, which was why they had said that if sufficient funding could be found to cover the Englefield 48%, they would reluctantly withdraw their objections. That funding had not yet been found, though they were very grateful for the funding that had been offered by the Diocese.
47 Mrs Templeman went on to say that Theale had seen significant growth over the last six years - its electoral roll had doubled - but the PCC was concerned that the future mission of the Church in Theale was significantly at risk if the pastoral reorganisation went ahead and there was not sufficient funding for a fulltime stipendiary priest at Theale. Theale would have an ongoing unrealistic annual financial target. That would detract from the mission of the Church to grow disciples and would deter potential new incumbents.
48. She said that the wider Church, especially in the Diocese of Oxford, would suffer too because of the dangerous precedent that a wealthy community, however small, if it could provide a house could become an independent benefice with its own priest and no responsibility to contribute to the local Church.
49. Mrs Templeman added that the Bishop of Reading, in 2013 had promised to lead a round-the-table conference with churchwardens and clergy. Despite many requests no such meeting had ever been convened. The day conference on the future of the benefice had been aborted. It was not too late to hold such a meeting to give proper consideration, together, to alternative pastoral reorganisation. There were a number of models worth exploring – such as a team ministry, which would give Englefield most of the autonomy it craved but would also be in line with collaborative working and mission priorities. Sir Tony Baldry had made the case for an Estate church - a good description of St Mark's entirely valid current ministry but not the ministry of a parish church.
50. She also thought that serious consideration should be given to expanding the parish of Holy Trinity into Calcot. For excellent geographical, historical and political reasons, Calcot’s inhabitants often regarded HoIy Trinity Theale as their parish church. Geographically it was by far the nearest church; historically the members of the now disbanded parish of St Birinus with its dedicated not consecrated church had had HoIy Trinity as their parish church; and politically Calcot was in West Berks not Reading. The civil parishes of Theale and Holybrook were originally one and still did much together such as Remembrance Sundays. The Bishop of Reading initially agreed enthusiastically to pursue that possibility but after an objection from the then Area Dean of Reading no further discussion had taken place. The future of the Bradfield Deanery was also under discussion and any proposal for pastoral reorganisation should be considered in that wider context.
51. She concluded by saying that Theale was a vibrant, exciting place to minister, ripe to grow even more with a new full-time incumbent and new housing. For that to happen, Holy Trinity would hugely benefit from the collaboration of the congregation of St Mark’s and would need sufficient funding to be able to focus on mission not money.
52. Noel Hedges said that she was a member of Deanery Synod, and of Holy Trinity’s PCC. She had also been the spokesperson for Theale at the aborted conference about the future of the benefice. She said that they
believed that the consultation process was seriously flawed by the Bishop of Reading’s announcement that he had decided to dissolve the benefice just a few days prior to the planned day conference. That was a clear breach of the Code of Practice which stated there should be the avoidance of pre-judgement.
53. She gave examples of the ways in which she believed further discussions on the matter had been skewed by this. Prior to the Bishop's declaration, the then Area Dean had expressed his view that Englefield should not become a stand-alone benefice, but afterwards said he had changed his mind because "The Bishop had made his decision”.
54. Another senior cleric and member of the Archdeaconry Pastoral Committee in an email to the Bishop had accused the Priest-in-Charge of being 'disruptive' because of Holy Trinity’s opposition to the proposals of the Bishop and Archdeacon.
55. The Deanery Treasurer had assumed, with much of the rest of the Deanery, that the pastoral reorganisation was a fait accompli and so took it upon himself, despite the protest of Theale, to calculate the parish share of both Theale and Englefield for 2017 as if they were already separate benefices thus creating a colossal share increase for Theale. That anomaly had now been recognised by the new Area Dean, but the damage had been done.
56. She felt that there had also been a further serious flaw. At the Bishop's Council meeting in July 2017, it was reported that the proposed pastoral reorganisation had been scrutinised by the Archdeaconry Committee. However, Theale had not been represented at that meeting and had had no opportunity to express the reason for their objections.
57. Mrs Hedges said that the draft Scheme would obviously be financially disadvantageous to Theale. Its parish share would go up from 52% of the combined benefice share (under the last bilateral agreement on share) to 100% of the stipendiary costs, an annual increase of some £30,000 p.a.
58. Holy Trinity had reached the target it was given in 2011 of increasing income, so that it could pay the agreed 52%. It should now be free to make its church fit for 21st century worship by installing a toilet, running water and Sunday school rooms and resourcing new outreach initiatives. Instead the goal posts had been moved and the PCC told that if it was to get any future funding towards a full-time priest, it had to sign-up to the 10- year plan. They were still opposing the pastoral reorganisation plans as the funding on offer fell a very long way short of the 48% share Englefield used to pay. The plan, as shown in the spreadsheet provided by Mr Doyle, was unrealistic and could be a real deterrent to finding a future incumbent. Theale could be sustainable but only with sufficient funding.
59. She said that the Englefield Trust had never contributed to Theale's parish share though they were grateful for the two grants which the Trust had made in the last ten years for fabric issues. The shortfall in the benefice
share over the last five years was caused by the unilateral decision of St Mark’s PCC in 2013 not to pay the 48% which had been paid for about 25 years. The patrons and chair of the Trust had written to the churchwardens and PCC in 2013 to explain that HoIy Trinity could apply to the Trust for funding, but they had felt, unanimously, that it was not the responsibility of HoIy Trinity to apply to the Trust to fund St Mark's shortfall - onIy St Mark’s could do that.
60. The PCC had always been fully informed and had discussed in detail all funding possibilities. It had declined the offer of the Trust to apply for funding to fund St Mark's shortfall. The Bishop of Reading had approached the Trust about possible funding for Theale into the future if the benefice was dissolved, but he was not successful. Holy Trinity, in 2017, had paid £3,000 more in share than St Mark's, although it had £10,000 less in income. She felt that Englefield should only have its wish to become entirely separate from Theale when a way of realistically funding the fulltime stipendiary priest Theale’s growth required had been found. That was essential if the exciting mission and ministry of Theale was to be sustained and grow.
61. The Reverend Peter Templeman said that the proposal to separate the parishes into their own benefices would definitely detract from mission in the area, as the communities of Theale and Englefield were thoroughly intertwined. His wife and he knew both churches and communities well having ministered for a year at Englefield. Theale and St Mark’s had worked together to huge mutual benefit for a year after they had arrived.
62. Personally, he had maintained his close links with Englefield over the last six years by playing cricket for Englefield. Generally, residents of Theale and Englefield met daily, as their Co-op, Post Office, Medical Centre, Library, Pharmacist etc. were all in Theale. Some young families who lived in Englefield attended Theale’s Mums and Toddler Group and Family church. The leader of the 100 strong Theale Scout troop lived on the Englefield Estate. A significant number of children from Theale went to school in Englefield and some the other way around. If the current controversy about the proposed siting of the new Theale Primary school on land owned by the Englefield Estate was not resolved, he understood that more children from Theale might go to school in Englefield.
63. He said that many individuals in Englefield had strong links with Theale and vice versa. The Benyon family had a long philanthropic connection with Theale - Lady Benyon and Dudley Fishburn had been Chair of Governors of Theale Green School. The Chair of Governors of Englefield School was Headmaster of Theale Green School; he lived in the ecclesiastical parish of Theale but in the civil parish of Englefield, as did the residents of a whole street.
64. Theale’s new churchwarden served on the PCC and taught at Sunday school in both churches. She knew better than anyone how much the two communities were intertwined and had asked him to quote her as saying “I have great affection for both churches. The divisions of the last few years
have greatly saddened me and seem so unnecessary. These are my friends and we should be working in mission and love together - which I am sure we could still do.” She spoke for many people in Theale.
65. Mr Templeman said that the two parishes enjoyed a number of excellent joint ventures including a benefice Quiet Day, suggested by Englefield; a Passover meal and fortnightly joint Bible studies, often including up to twelve members of St Mark’s, both residents of the parish and members of the congregation from further afield; and regular evenings on various key interests.
66. The Theale community was unequivocally against the proposal. He quoted from Theale Parish Council’s representation “Historically the villages of Englefield and Theale have always been closely linked, and there are many connections between the residents of the two. There are also physical links between the two communities in that the Englefield Estate is the predominant landowner in Theale. To separate the two communities contradicts how they have operated and co-existed for many years.”
67. He pointed out that the Parish Council had no axe to grind - none of its members were regular church attenders. Mission needed to be across both communities as any coherent mission strategy would target different groups: families, the elderly, young parents, etc. which had different needs and interests. Englefield was so small, and the two communities were so intertwined, that the parishes needed to work together, as the Bishop of Reading recognised in his letter to both PCCs in in September 2013.
68. Mr Templeman said that Theale believed that the cure of souls and the mission of both parishes and the wider Church would be significantly impaired by the proposals because they are inextricably intertwined. He said that despite all the links, the clergy at Holy Trinity had never sought to interfere in the day-to-day running of St Mark’s. The Priest-in-Charge or PCC had never interfered, as had been suggested, with the licensing of the Resident Priest. When they heard, in 20l7, that the Resident Priest needed his licence renewed, the Standing Committee (led by the Priest-in- Charge) had unanimously recommended his relicensing to the PCC. Most of the PCC members had felt they ought first to meet him and hear a little about the ministry at Englefield, which they did before happily agreeing to his relicensing
69 He appreciated that the leadership at Englefield did not wish to engage with Theale at present, as they had not for the past 5 years. Theale’s plea was that some structural unity was retained so that when personalities change a fruitful partnership can once again occur.
Questions to representors against the draft Scheme
70. In response to questions Mrs Templeman said that she and her husband had initially had a good reception in Englefield and that for the first year after they arrived the parishes had worked well together. People from Englefield had joined in Bible studies and attended joint services (including
those not held on Sundays) and the Mums’ and Toddlers’ Group had functioned better with more involvement from Englefield. She thought that some in Englefield did not accept the Priest-in-Charge’s role in that parish and that the relationship between the parishes had gone wrong when Englefield decided to reduce its share contribution. Currently she took only one service a year in Englefield and her involvement there was limited to monthly meetings with the Resident Priest and attending Prayer Meetings when she could. She saw no inherent reason why the parishes should not work together as relationships other than with the Englefield parish leadership were good. She felt that the current difficulties were to do with personalities and this could change in the future.
71. When asked how they felt the flaws they had identified in the process could be addressed, Mrs Templeman and Mrs Hedges felt this could only be done by referring the matter back to the Bishop so that a round-table conference could be held on the basis agreed for the meeting in 2016, for which the parishes had been preparing for a year. They thought that if the current proposal had been the outcome of such a conference, it might have been accepted by Theale.
72 Replying to a question about what she thought would be lost in terms of mission under the proposed draft scheme, Mrs Templeman said that she had not been doing much outreach in Englefield recently as she felt it had been unwanted but doing so in future would be more difficult because the link with the school as an ex-officio governor would be lost and involvement in the Scouts would be very limited. She thought that Englefield, which operated more as an estate church than as a parish, would lose the satisfaction of participating in ventures such as the local foodbank and that the tradition of philanthropy in Theale from the Benyon family and others would be stifled.
73. In response to questions about parish finances, the representors against the draft Scheme thought that Englefield had been using the money it no longer paid towards parish share on its parish church. Both parishes had Grade I listed church buildings, but Theale had no money to spend on its church. They thought Theale would be unable to increase its share payments at the rate proposed as many of its congregation were people with young families who did not have the means to pay more. A new incumbent would need to give 50% of his or her time to fundraising, which would discourage applications. Mission was the best way to generate funds.
74. Their view of what would happen if the Scheme was allowed to proceed was that mission would continue, but less effectively without the involvement of Englefield and with the community discouraged by the decision. Theale would accept the diocesan funding which had been offered but as the congregation was already giving as much as it could, income was only likely to increase if it grew as a result of new housing being built. Conversely, if the draft Scheme was not made they hoped that Englefield would accept the decision and start to work together with Theale.
Oral Representations in favour of the draft Scheme
75 Those in favour of the draft Scheme then addressed the Committee. David Gibbons said that the proposal to dissolve the benefice was about structure, not personalities. It was a chance to simplify an overcomplicated and hierarchical structure which hampered mission, which accorded with the Archbishop’s wish to simplify the structures of the Church of England.
76 The over-complication of the current structure was exemplified by the process that would need to be followed in the recruitment of Mrs Templeman's successor if the Scheme did not proceed. Each parish would need to prepare a parish profile and they would need to find common ground on a role description and person profile. More than 30 people, two patrons, two sets of churchwardens and two PCCs, would be involved in agreeing the advertising, shortlisting, and interviewing. There would need to be agreement over a ministerial working agreement between the Englefield Priest and the person appointed. All of that would need to be repeated when the St Mark's priest moved on. The number involved would be halved in each case if the Scheme went ahead.
77. Mr Gibbons said that Englefield believed that proper consultation had taken place and if the exercise was to be repeated the same conclusion would be reached.
78. In his view the two communities were not intertwined – one was a prospering town with freeholders, office workers and proximity to Reading and the station: a thriving place. The other was almost entirely rural, with its population living in houses rented from the Estate. As for the church communities, each of the several attempts over the last forty years to promote joint activities had petered out after a short time. Over 80% of the St Mark’s congregation had no links with Theale and few passed through it. Whereas in several local villages the Englefield Estate was the principal landlord, it was not in Theale where it owned around 1% of the dwellings. Nothing would change geographically if the Scheme was agreed and any shared community activities would continue unchanged.
79. Regarding finances, he said that Theale would not be disadvantaged by separation and the plan agreed with the Diocese would make it financially secure for the next ten years. Even if Theale fell short of its share target the gap would automatically be picked up by the Deanery through loss of share rebate. St Mark's had made it clear that it would not, as had been the case, pay half of the benefice share but would continue to participate willingly in any Deanery-led scheme supporting Theale. Originally share had been allocated by parish with Sir William Benyon paying for all repairs to St Marks’s. Englefield’s reduction of its contribution of the benefice share to 29% was a reversion to that position. He noted that Theale, having accepted the diocesan offer of ten years of support, had now made
a new offer to withdraw their objections in exchange for support in perpetuity, but sadly that was not on offer from anyone.
80. Peter Haig said that separation would not make it more likely that Theale would lose its priest or see its church closed. The Diocese had made clear that a full-time priest would be appointed to Theale when Mrs Templeman moved on. There had been no talk at any time of the church closing.
81. He said that exhaustive consideration had been given to a whole range of options for alternative reorganisation. None of them were considered desirable by both parishes and all would be opposed by one or the other. Bishop Wilde had agreed with Sir William Benyon and his successors that there would be a Resident Priest in Englefield and that agreement had been honoured by both parties. Contrary to what was asserted, the Diocesan Standing and Pastoral Committee had not recommended that the parish of Englefield should become the footprint of the church.
82. Agreement had been reached by the Diocese and the parishes concerned to enlarge the footprint of Theale. The transfer from Burghfield of the land around the Theale Lakeside Development would give Theale about 900 new residents. A review of the Arc data on all other adjoining parishes showed no other potential for enlarging Theale's population. The only parish where the geography might have made sense was St Matthew's Reading but, unlike Theale, it was in a deprived area and unable to cover its ministry costs, so taking part of its population would make Theale's situation worse. The adjoining areas in other parishes were all agricultural land, M4 motorway or a major shopping centre.
83. In his view, the objections that had been raised were mostly inward looking and were insignificant compared to the real cost which was to mission. He explained that outreach activities were central to Englefield’s mission and for the last three years, it had needed, at least, to reshape them. For over twenty years Englefield had supported what was then a new Diocese in Tanzania, the Bishop of which had written "l first became involved with St Mark's over twenty years ago... At that time the material resources of the Diocese were almost non-existent and over many years the consistent support from St Mark's in prayer and in financial resource was an important factor in getting the Diocese started and sustained." The support from the St Mark's congregation had been very substantial with farms, vehicles, churches, education and training. He asked the Committee to understand their sadness when they are portrayed as an inward-looking mean congregation.
84. Englefield was a small parish and was dependent on a small number of volunteers who had competing priorities. The unproductive effort spent on trying to resolve the inherent tensions in the existing arrangement had sapped their energy. There had been countless discussions over the last five years, all time-consuming, all a deflection from mission and all to no avail. The suspension of the presentation to the living was now in its seventeenth year; surely enough time for the Church to take a view.
85. Victoria Fishburn said that they were proud of their outreach in Englefield both in the countryside and largely farming parish and with their Church School. The Resident Priest and his wife were closely involved with Englefield Church School. The children had close links with St Mark's where at least 5 school services were held each year. lt was unsatisfactory that the Resident Priest, who lived twelve paces from the school and helped with the RE syllabus and the planning of assemblies, was precluded from being a governor. The Theale priest was the governor even though Theale was not in the catchment area.
86. She said that Englefield’s Sunday Club seldom had fewer than half-a- dozen children each week. In the census month of October last year its weekly average of 7.5 children was double the average of 3.5 across the deanery. Yet a representor from Theale, who had not been at St Mark’s for at least five years had said: "the congregation had very few signs of young people coming through." On the contrary their nurturing of the young over the years had currently produced a candidate for ordination, a member of the Archbishop's St Anselm Community and two young adults working in a church setting. They were discussing with the DAC a building extension for their children.
87. Englefield also wanted to do more to support rural ministry. They wanted to continue to be involved with micro-credit which was making life- changing interventions in the lives of many of the poorest people. The dissolution of the Benefice would set free both parishes to develop their own vision: it would renew their energy and their enthusiasm. There had been worship at Englefield for nearly 1,000 years. The outreach from St Mark's Englefield had never wavered and, as a result, it had a gathered congregation from a wide area, attracted by the worship there. She agreed with Mrs Templeman that tensions had been there ever since the formation of the benefice.
88. ln the 40 years she had lived at Englefield, Mrs Fishburn had known five priests at Theale and five at her church. All had been reasonable people who found the structure of the benefice troublesome, preoccupying and not at all conducive to the spread and enjoyment of Christian values. The preoccupation had also bedeviled their various bishops. The DMPC was to be congratulated on finally seizing the problem, rather than just ‘kicking the can farther down the road’ and creating more discord ahead. Both churches were now in the fortunate position of being able to flourish independently both in their finances and their flock.
89. She concluded by saying that it was the perfect time to break free of the deadlock caused by putting two very different parishes together for no other reason than that a Church bye-law required it. That requirement had long since gone, and it was time to develop a more harmonious and Christian arrangement. They had no doubt that it would be in the best interests of mission within the Diocese to accept the Bishop's proposal.
Questions to representors in favour of the draft Scheme
90. In response to a question about what Englefield considered its Mission Statement to be, Mrs Fishburn said that its mission was to provide occasional offices to the parishioners of its rural village and attract them to other services and events. It aimed to do so in a welcoming and non- judgemental way. It also aimed to raise money for charities, especially in Tanzania (the Microcredit scheme) and to bring the Gospel to children via the school, 12-14% of whom were from Theale.
91. A member asked why there seemed to be little contact between the two parishes. Mrs Fishburn replied that given that all the priests who had been in office had failed to generate much contact the reason for this must be the structure of the benefice. The Priest-in-Charge had insufficient time to devote to this. The most important meeting point was the School, but this also included pupils from other parishes and was hampered by the Resident Priest being only an associate Governor. Generally speaking, where there were links, they were between the villages rather than between the congregations.
92. Another member asked what the parishes were prevented from doing by the current structure. Mr Gibbons said that the problem was the additional burden imposed by the structure which made it difficult to agree on what was wanted. In the last selection process for a Resident Priest this had resulted in the loss of two good candidates. Arguments were unhelpful. When asked why a single parish and PCC would not resolve such problems, he said that this was one of the options not favoured by Englefield. He did not know what Theale’s view of it was. He thought the underlying issue for Theale was finance and that this could only be addressed by growing its congregation, so that alternative structures would not help.
93. The speakers in favour thought that the benefits of the draft Scheme in terms of mission and pastoral care would be more time for the Resident Priest to devote to these without the distraction of the benefice structure and its problems, and the release of energy in both congregations. Englefield wished to concentrate on its own congregation and could and did not think that the linking of the parishes was helpful for Theale either.
94. When asked whether the main purpose of the draft Scheme from Englefield’s point of view was to ring-fence its income, Mr Gibbons said that this was not the intention. He also said that greater sharing of ministry across the parishes would require more meetings between the clergy and these had mostly been unproductive in the past.
95. In response to a suggestion that those in Englefield was simply not interested in Theale, the speakers in favour said that it was a case of the parishes being different rather than Englefield being uninterested. Joining the parishes had, at the time, been the only way for Englefield to have its own priest, but there had also been a wish to help Theale. However, the starting point now was not a blank canvas – joining the parishes had not
proved successful. Englefield had never been and would not be a burden on the Diocese.
Oral presentation by Diocesan representatives
96. Mrs Jestico, addressing the question of whether Theale would be financially disadvantaged by the proposed arrangements, said that the cost base for the two parishes jointly would not be increased but its impact would depend on the parish share allocation. A new Diocesan share scheme had been introduced in 2014 based on the costs of ministry plus diocesan costs and taking account of income. The Diocese allocated costs to deaneries, but Bradfield Deanery used the same method to allocate its share within the deanery.
97. She said that there was no foundation for the historic division of costs between Theale and Englefield on a 52:48 basis. Based on the Diocesan formula the allocation would be 70% for Theale to 30% for Englefield, because Englefield had no ministry costs. Theale was comfortably-off compared with many other parishes in the Diocese but had a deficit on its share of £23,000, which needed to be addressed by the financial plan. She felt that the plan was achievable with the help of the proposed boundary change which would add 900 residents to the parish.
98. The Archdeacon of Berkshire said that the Diocese welcomed an outside view of the situation which had been a very long-standing issue for successive bishops and archdeacons. She paid tribute to the work of both parishes in their own ways, but recognised that they were different. She thought that they had been ill-served by the present ambiguous arrangements for the ministry of the Incumbent or Priest-in-Charge and the Resident Priest. These had created difficulties for successive clergy, which indicated that they stemmed from the structural relationship rather than from personal differences. This had led to a huge amount of correspondence which had a burden for bishops and archdeacons. The DMPC had looked for a solution which gave the opportunity for both parishes to channel grace. There was no agenda of punishing either parish.
99. She said that the Day Conference in May 2016 had taken place with the parishes being asked to consider, beforehand, a paper on different reorganisation options, identifying their pros and cons and financial impact and give their comments and preferred way forward. The options had been:
• a Team Ministry (but the benefice was small for this; teams depended on the establishment of good relationships; and one or other parish was likely to feel subsumed in such an arrangement); • enlarging Theale to make it more viable (but Calcot was in a different deanery and across the M4); • St Mark’s becoming a footprint parish or proprietary chapel (but these options would separate the church from its community) • the status quo (but the legal encumbrances would continue); or
• creating two separate benefices (which seemed the best option).
100. The parishes had submitted their written comments and the Bridegbuilders’ mediator had been asked to consider these (but without meeting the parishes) and facilitate further discussions. He had felt that the strong language used in the submissions indicated that there was no prospect of successful mediation. The submissions had demonstrated signs of hopelessness and despair; an inability to disengage or see the issues clearly; the lack of any willingness to concede or reflect; desire for a legal rather than a relational solution. He had therefore recommended that the best course of action was for the Diocese to give the parishes a steer on a potential solution and get reaction to it.
101. The meeting had been held, at which a prepared statement had been read on behalf of each parish. Both had appreciated their priests and had made it clear that finance was an underlying issue. Theale had indicated its fear of losing a full-time incumbent and the Templemans had expressed concern at the good work they had done being undone. The Bishop of Reading had then written a follow-up letter explaining what was considered necessary for Theale to thrive financially: extending its boundaries, increasing its funding and deanery support. Unfortunately, this had appeared to pre-judge formal consultations.
102. The Archdeacon had met the PCCs and invited further written responses. These had been taken by the Bishop and Archdeacon to the AMPC which had then begun the formal process under s.6 of the Measure. The PCCs had met representatives of the DMPC as part of this process but had refused to meet them together. The DMPC had been represented by another Archdeacon and Area Dean, the Lay Chair of the Diocesan Synod and the lay chairs of four other deaneries.
103. The Archdeacon thought that all were now weary of the process and it would not be profitable to revisit it. There appeared to be no prospect of arriving at an agreed solution and the AMPC and DMPC did not wish to keep the parishes locked into an arrangement of permanent discord. They felt that recruitment would be easier to separate benefices, mission would be better served with more structural certainty and separation would provide an opportunity to restore trust.
104. Mrs Spivey, the DMPC secretary explained that no representatives of either parish had been invited to the DMPC meeting, as they had already met its representatives.
Questions to Diocesan representatives
105. In response to questions, the Archdeacon said that a deanery plan was two years away and that was too long to wait to resolve the current issues. On whether the Diocese would support the establishment of Englefield as a separate benefice if it had not been self-funding she said that the Bishop and DMPC had no objection to small pastoral units as such. There were seven others in the diocese.
106. Asked about the perception in Theale that the draft Scheme compromised Gospel values, the Archdeacon said that there would be an important task in communicating any decision to proceed to Theale. The DMPC saw the Scheme as liberating both parishes from an unsatisfactory arrangement rather than punishing either. Arrangements would be put in place to assure Theale about its future. The 10-year plan showed the Bishop’s commitment to ministry in Theale. It represented an unusual subsidy by the DBF to the deanery.
107. On how easy she expected it to be to make future appointments to Englefield, the Archdeacon said that the Diocese found it relatively easy to attract applicants for House-for-Duty posts and not all came from those near retirement. However, she could not guarantee that it would be an easy process.
108. Asked whether the Bishop of Reading had taken any action to mitigate his perceived pre-judgement, she said that he had written to make it clear that he should have said that he would be asking the AMPC to consider this recommendation. Thereafter he had stepped back from the consultation process and asked the Archdeacon to take the lead.
Reasons for the Commissioners’ decision
109. The Commissioners first considered the question of whether the consultation process under the Mission and Pastoral Measure had been flawed by the Bishop of Reading’s statement ahead of the Day Conference held in May 2016. They concluded that it had not done so, particularly when the process was considered as a whole.
110. They noted that the Bishop of Reading had taken immediate steps to mitigate the effect of his statement, which had preceded the formal consultation process, by making it clear that he should have described his view as his recommendation to the AMPC, rather than a decision, and by stepping back from further involvement in the detailed consultation process, which had been led by the Archdeacon. They did not think that the fact that the Bishop’s views were known had resulted in a biased consultation process. His views did not appear to have inhibited those who disagreed with them from saying so and to some extent they had provided a focus for them to do so.
111. They further noted that the Bishop of Reading had taken no part in the meetings between the parishes and representatives of the DMPC, all of whom had been from other deaneries and had included an archdeacon other than the Archdeacon of Berkshire. Although he had participated as a member of both the AMPC and DMPC in the meetings at which they had formulated their recommendations to the Bishop of Oxford, there had been no suggestion that there was not full debate at these meetings or that the Bishop of Reading had sought to direct the views of the other members. In each case they had unanimously approved the recommendation to create two separate one-parish benefices of Theale and Englefield.
112. The Commissioners also acknowledged Theale’s concern that they had been given no opportunity to make a presentation to the DMPC but noted that Englefield had also not been invited to do so. Both parishes had met representatives of the DMPC.
113. The Commissioners particularly noted that it was the Bishop of Oxford, rather than the Bishop of Reading, who was the decision-maker on whether the DMPC’s recommendation should be taken forward. He had taken no part in the process until the DMPC had made its recommendation. He had said that he was not influenced in his own view by the Bishop of Reading and the Commissioners had no evidence to the contrary.
114. They noted that the remedy proposed by the representors for the perceived procedural flaw was for the draft Scheme to be referred back to the Bishop for further consideration at a round-table conference. However, they thought that this would be less effective in doing so than their own consideration of the representations, as any further local discussions would always take place in the light of the Bishop of Reading’s known views.
115. The Commissioners noted that their role was to provide an independent second-tier assessment of contested reorganisation. In this case, representors from Theale had made their concerns about the process very clear. The Bishop of Reading’s views had given a clear target around which they were able to make submissions. The Commissioners had been able to consider those views and to come to a decision in accordance with their duty under section 1 of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011, which requires them to have due regard to the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England. They therefore thought that this had remedied any flaw earlier in the process.
116. Turning to the merits of the proposed draft Scheme, the Commissioners considered that the essential point was that unity and collaborative working could not be enforced. They noted the strength of feeling expressed by many from Theale who wished to see the current structure preserved in order to foster working together between the two parishes and communities. However, they also noted that, regrettably, there no longer appeared to be any comparable desire to do so from those at Englefield.
117. They noted that the current arrangements seemed to have worked well only intermittently over the forty years during which they had been in place and that the amount of time and energy absorbed in trying to make them work better had been a distraction from mission both within the parishes and for successive bishops and archdeacons. They therefore agreed with the current Bishop of Oxford’s view that maintaining the status quo ran a significant risk of simply locking the parishes into a state of permanent dispute.
118. They did not think that the communities of Theale and Englefield were so intertwined that mission would be hampered by them being in separate benefices. They noted that they had not been in the same benefice prior to 1976 and that this did not appear to have been the primary motive for linking them at that time.
119. They noted that the parishes had always been separate and noted that this had not prevented residents of Englefield from attending services or events in Theale and did not think that it would do so in the future if the parishes were in different benefices. Similarly, if there was a wish in the parishes to undertake joint mission or outreach projects they would be no less able to do so than under the current arrangements.
120. They noted that catchment areas of Church schools often included a number of parishes in different benefices and therefore saw no particular reason to think that the Church’s links with pupils from Theale attending a school in Englefield would be diminished. They noted that only 14% of the pupils at the Englefield school were from Theale and that there were also pupils from other parishes. They noted that the proposed reorganisation would mean that the incumbent of Englefield would replace the incumbent of the existing benefice as the ex-officio governor of the school but did not consider this to be detrimental to mission.
121. The Commissioners noted that the two parishes took different, and apparently irreconcilable, views on what contribution Englefield should have been making to the combined parish share of the current benefice; that Englefield had reduced its direct contribution from 2011; and that this had been recognised in the deanery allocation (from either 2014 or 2017 according to varying accounts). They also noted that the offer of indirect support via the Englefield Charitable Trust (regardless of whether this had been taken up) had not extended beyond 2016. They also noted the view of the Englefield PCC that Theale was falling short in its share payments and that it would in future only support Theale via its contributions to the Deanery. As all share payments are essentially voluntary in nature, they accepted that the financial reality was that Englefield would not be increasing its contribution to the combined share, regardless of whether the draft Scheme proceeded or not. Consequently, they did not consider that Theale would be financially disadvantaged by allowing it to proceed.
122. They noted that the Diocesan methodology for calculating parish share, which was also used by the Bradfield Deanery, did include a weighting for ability to pay. They accepted that Theale, although less affluent than other parishes in the Deanery was not regarded as deprived by the standard of the Diocese as a whole. They noted that an unusually generous package of financial support had been offered by the Diocese, via the Deanery, to support Theale in achieving the financial plan it had been given and, however reluctantly, accepted and that that this should ensure its viability over the next ten years. They also noted the view of the Diocesan Director of Finance that Theale could become self-sufficient over that period, although they accepted that this was dependent to some extent on expected population growth and by this being reflected in additional giving.
However, they noted that an immediate population increase of some 900 was expected in the short-term from the proposed transfer of part of the parish of Burghfield.
123. They noted that the Bishop had given a commitment to appoint a full-time incumbent to Theale in the immediate future and that the promised financial support should ensure that Theale would retain one for at least ten years. They did not think it was reasonable for the Diocese to give any commitment further ahead than this in respect of a benefice which was below the diocesan average in population. They also noted that Englefield would not be unusual in the Diocese in being a small pastoral unit with a House-for Duty incumbent.
124. They noted that the current Diocesan policy was not to bring forward church closures except where requested by the PCC. They therefore thought it unlikely, in view of the size of population which it served and its expected growth, that proposals for the closure of Holy Trinity, Theale would be brought forward in the foreseeable future. They also thought that being in a separate single parish benefice would, if anything, make its closure less, rather than more, likely.
125. The Commissioners noted that as part of the informal consultations leading up to the Day Conference in May 2016 the PCCs had been asked for their views on several options for reorganisation as well as that of preserving the status quo. They therefore thought that alternative options had been considered and accepted the reasons given by the Archdeacon why these had been rejected and the current draft Scheme preferred.
126. In view of this and of the view of the Bridgebuilders’ consultant that the differences between the parishes were unlikely to be resolved by further discussion or mediation, they saw no reason to delay making a decision on the present proposals to allow further consultation.
127. Overall the Commissioners agreed with the Bishop that the proposed reorganisation, while not a manifestation of Unity in Christ, was nonetheless preferable to the current arrangement. They agreed with the view that it would further the mission of the Church by allowing both parishes to focus on this rather than on their differences. In time they hoped that this would allow them to co-operate on a more informal basis.
128. They also felt that the current breakdown in the relationship between the parishes had to some extent been the result of personality clashes and recognised that pastoral arrangements could always be amended by further reorganisation if circumstances changed. They noted too that the prospective deanery review might influence future arrangements.
129. They also considered all the other points made in the representations but felt that none of them was of sufficient weight to outweigh the points listed above.
Conclusion
130. The Commissioners concluded that the proposed Scheme should therefore proceed. They realise that their decision will disappoint those who made representations against the draft Scheme, but they hope that this statement will be helpful in indicating that their decision was reached only after careful consideration of all the relevant factors.
131. I enclose a notice, as required by the Measure, about the right to apply for permission to appeal to Her Majesty in Council against the Scheme or any provisions of it.
Yours faithfully
Andrea Mulkeen