Liverpool Diocesan Review

... that all may call upon the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder... Zeph 3:9

The Diocesan Review aims to be a wide-ranging and radical look at the mission of our diocese and how it is financed. The review is particularly concerned with how we make best use of all the resources that we have to plan for growth and renewal. We are looking to resource revival rather than manage decline. A key question is what can best be done at Deanery and Parish level rather than at Diocesan level.

In 2003 we face an annual deficit in the region of £1 million. This represents 8% of our total income, or 20% of our total giving.

In recent years the diocese has run planned deficit budgets (where we agree to spend out more income that we receive) so that parishes could be cushioned from the above cost increases. However, this policy cannot continue indefinitely. One of the tasks of the review is to consider the role of reserves in supporting the diocese in the short term.

Quite simply, we cannot carry on as we are. We will need to make some tough decisions and many of us in the parishes face challenges and change.

However, money is not everything. The review is not simply a cost-cutting exercise (although considerable savings will need to be made), rather, we are looking to our future mission and priorities. We want to build and present an exciting vision for the diocese of the new ways in which God is wanting to work in and through us over the next 5-10 years. We believe that if people within the diocese catch hold of a new vision we will see increased giving both of time and money.

The Diocesan Synod asked the Bishop's Council to appoint a small group to lead this review. The review group consists of Peter Bounds, who heads up special projects in the Bishop's office, the Bishop of Warrington: David Tomkins, Chair of the Board of Finance; Rev. Eric Bramhall, Chair of the House of Clergy; Chris Pye, Chair of the House of Laity; Rev. Cynthia Dowdle, Dean of Women's Ministry; Don Binks, a Parish Treasurer, and Mike Eastwood, Diocesan Secretary.

However, and crucially, the Review must involve as many people as possible if it is to succeed. Plans simply imposed 'from the top' will not bring about the fundamental and radical changes we need to embrace to meet the challenges of the future. The review and its outcomes must be seen as the responsibility of the whole diocese.

December is the end of the first stage of the process. After this begins the detailed work of implementation

November 12, 2001. Please send your submission to: Diocesan Review, Bishop's Lodge, Woolton Park, Liverpool L25 6DT

This is genuine Review. All options, suggestions and views will be welcomed and seriously considered.

With a strong steer from Bishop James and recognizing that the diocese is the sum of the parishes and the context for the mission of the Bishop, the Review Group took as its base the diocesan mission statement for 2001 agreed by the Bishop's Council:

Following discussion with the Bishops and Core Group the Review Group identified the following as four key priorities within the mission of the Diocese:

60% of our parishes are in or partly in urban priority areas. Where many professionals and other denominations have moved out, we are still there in the inner city and outer estates, and are committed to maintaining stipendiary clergy living in parishes.

The numbers of children in church has fallen drastically in recent years and, although we are reaching out to children in a wide variety of ways (e.g. through church schools and church-run midweek activities), we believe that involving and nurturing children and their families in the life of the church is a key priority.

Many young people drift away from church in their teenage years. Involving children and young people in the life of the church is not just about building 'the church of tomorrow'; it is also about celebrating the full family of the church today.

Again, a whole generation has grown up largely untouched by and uninvolved in their parish church. Unfamiliar with church traditions they find church services uncomfortable, if not alienating. We need to find ways of reaching out to young adults that respond to their experiences and spiritual background (or in current jargon, new ways of 'being church').

Recognizing that there may be other priorities in your local area, do you agree with these priority areas for the diocese as a whole? If so, why? If not, why not? What other priority areas should we have (bearing in mind if we have too many they cease to be priorities and become a generalized wish list)?

Whatever our priorities, we also need to think how we organize ourselves and our work most effectively. For example:

Clergy have more and more demands placed upon them. Liverpool Diocese pioneered what are now known as annual Work Consultations & Ministerial Review to support clergy. How should we now best support, resource and develop the clergy that we have? What can we do to ensure that they can concentrate on their priorities?

'Every member ministry' is the clear pattern in the New Testament. In our diocese we have increasingly focussed on collaborative ministry and greatly value the wide-ranging role of lay people in ministry and leadership. How best do we involve all Christians in the ministry of the church? What new forms of ministry do we envisage the church undertaking? How do we prepare and support people for these ministries? How do we enable the laity to be salt and light in their neighbourhoods and in the course of their work?

How do we maximize the use and potential of all these assets? In particular, how do we encourage church members to give more, recognizing that stewardship is a key part of our discipleship?

We have one of the largest and best known cathedrals in the world. It is approaching the centenary of its foundation. What is the role of the Cathedral in supporting the mission and ministry of our parishes?

Do you agree that the above are the key areas to develop in terms of extending the reach and ministry of the church. If so, why? If not, why not? What other priority areas should we have (again bearing in mind if we have too many they cease to be priorities and become a generalized wish list)?

We also need to think through how we as a diocese we can best organize ourselves and our activities. For example:

We tend to do a lot on our own as individual parishes. Can we increase co-operation between parishes (e.g. over youth work or, say, lunch clubs for elderly people)? Are there new structures that might help this? Should we ask deaneries to consider afresh the mission of God in their area and ask them to plan what ministerial patterns and resources they need?

Each parish will have its own concerns and priorities (e.g. pastoral concern for elderly people). However, we often carry on as we have always have done, dealing with events and opportunities as they arise. Should each parish have a stronger sense of planning and priority so that the PCC and others are clear about what they are trying to achieve, when and why; and, particularly important for this review, to ensure that the diocesan organization is deployed to support parish needs and plans?

There are many examples in our diocese of Anglican churches working really effectively with other denominations. How can we best build on these and promote more ecumenical working?

We have a huge number of committees overseeing different aspects of the work of the diocese. Some of these committees overlap: they also take a lot of time both for committee members and those servicing them. What committees do we actually need and who should be on them?

Also, deaneries play a key role in the running of the diocese. What should their role be in a new environment? How should this be resourced?

Church House is the central administrative point within the diocese. It aims to serve both the mission of the parishes and the ministry of the Bishops. How effectively does it do this? How best could these functions be delivered? Is Church House located in the most appropriate place? And are there some issues that we can better undertake in co-operation with other dioceses?

Do you agree that the above are the key areas to look at in terms of organizing the work of the diocese more effectively. If so, why? If not, why not? What other priority areas should we have (again bearing in mind if we have too many they cease to be priorities and become a generalized wish list)?