Writing in the Church Times in May, Bishop John Bickersteth raises the question of the number of Suffragan Bishops in a Church with few clergy. He argues that their function could be carried out by archdeacons and cost saving achieved. His approach is based on the ASB service for consecrating Bishops which puts the emphasis on the main responsibility of a Bishop being the care of the clergy.
I scribbled the following reply to the Church Times:
“The Rt Revd John Bickersteth raises an interesting issue when he asks “Why not cut some Bishops”? Yet his argument focuses on cost and function, rather than leadership and mission.
In the introduction to the Ordination of Bishops we are reminded that “Bishops are ordained to be shepherds of Christ’s flock and guardians of the faith of the apostles, proclaiming the gospel of God’s kingdom and leading his people in mission.”
A reduction in the number of suffragan bishops would inevitably result in the remaining bishops becoming increasingly inaccessible both to the Church and also to the wider community. In an age of connectivity, networks and subsiduarity we need to ask how encouraging such rarity would assist in leading people in mission.
The fundamental question raised by Bishop John Bickersteth, but not addressed, concerns the nature of leadership needed for a Church committed to mission in the twenty-first century. Resolving this question applies as much to incumbents, as it does to bishops Models of oversight and leadership from the past may not always be helpful in determining what is right for the present. Yet the relationship between leadership and mission is well established.
Quoting clergy numbers and ratios of bishops to clergy is to ignore the changing nature of the church. In my area we have over 350 laity who have undergone training to equip them to unfold various aspects of ministry and to become part of the public face of the church’s ministry. Relating to them, maintaining a mission mindset and ensuring that their gifts of ministry are well used, requires a different approach both from their priests and also from their bishops.
In the same way, parish priests are taking on significant complexity as their ‘cure’ encompasses increasingly diverse communities. Supporting, encouraging and pastoring the clergy requires a far more informed understanding and involvement than may have been needed in the past.
Cost and function are pertinent, but the nature of leadership and appropriate shapes for that leadership are perhaps prior questions.”