Management skills can be taught: vision in my view cannot, although it can be encouraged to develop, and discouraged (much more easily) by administrative distractions.

All types (am I allowed to say classes?) of Bishop are vital to the propagation of the Vision and to support local articulation – translating the Diocesan Mission into a reality of actions in every Deanery and Parish. This may mean they need to get out more, not less!

One could make comparisons between a Priest-in-charge with his/her churchwarden(s) and a Bishop with Arch-Deacon: in an ideal set-up one leads, the other manages but with a shared vision, goals, and methodology.

From what I’ve seen in my five years in Lincoln Diocese, this model (even if I’ve interpreted it simplistically) works brilliantly.

As the Americans might say “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Dear Justin,

Many thanks for this. As you say, we will have to wait and see. My take is that we cannot really afford the national ‘oversight’ overhead, but the point which seems never to be made is that much of the work of an Archdeacons does not actually need to be done by someone in priestly orders and could be done by either a suffragan Bishop or a lay person, but there are things which Suffragans do which need someone in episcopal orders. iIf we are downsizeing, why is it assumed that the savings should be made from suffragans?

Hope that you enjoy synod.

as ever,

+David

You can find the paper from Bradford here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july09/gs1733a.pdf and the response from the Dioceses Commission here: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/gensynod/agendas/july09/gs1733b.pdf