What should we use as our major principle for shaping our Church and making it fit and vibrant for the 21st Century? Well now. There are several strong candidates for us to choose from.

Our Mission
We could decide to allow the Mission of our church to shape our future Ministry needs. What is our Gospel? Who do we need to reach out to? How many workers do we need in the field? How can we support them financially? Do they need a salary, a pension, a house? The advantage of this needs-based analysis is that one is led into an understanding of what resources will be sufficient from a position of strength. At the end of the exercise we can be fairly certain that our result is broadly sustainable.

Our Issues
We could allow our Church to be shaped by the issues that are currently being debated. If you want a Church that caters only for only a subset of the faithful you can create a rules-based environment. Of course this may lead to lots of little churches with their own unique flavours. However, if that is what is wanted we should head in that direction. It may not do a lot for Christian unity and when the next divisive issue comes along you can double the number of denominations over night. Not quite what I mean when I think of church growth.

Our Finances
Then, of course, comes the natural choice in today’s world. We should shape our capability as a Church by our capacity to support the Mission that we have inherited. We look at what we have, decide how much it will cost to run and then get rid of the bits we can’t afford. We must keep all the buildings, Diocesan Offices and Bishops’ Palaces. So the obvious thing to do is to sacrifice the financial support that we give to our clergy. But as we want them to serve us for a bit longer, perhaps we will just cut their post-retirement support.

Alright, so I have over-egged it a little, but I suspect that if you are still reading that you see where I am going with this article. We can have a needs-based Mission-shaped Church, a rules-based plethora of Issue-shaped Churches or we can have a capacity-based Pensions-shaped Church.

I know which I want. Now is the time for us to be brave and question exactly what provision we should make for the world that is ripe for harvest. We need to rethink our strategy on Housing (before and after retirement), Stipends and Pensions based on what we perceive to be the needs of Mission. For a short while only, we can tinker with the Pension Scheme and lower the increases in Stipends. It will enable us to get through the current financial difficulties. Eventually, we must do a formal needs-based analysis of our Church’s Mission for a sustainable future. My view is that this will need to be in this quinquennium.
Exciting isn’t it!

Tim Hind
Chair Open Synod Group