In response to an article I recently wrote about the leadership role of bishops in the Church of England (No Particular Place to Go), an anonymous episcopal correspondent on the Fulcrum website responded that I basically didn’t know what I was talking about. Indeed I had, he said, an “almost complete lack of understanding about what bishops in the Church of England actually do.”
Nobody likes to be called an ignoramus, least of all me. But it is true. I don’t really know what bishops actually do, any more than most of my parishioners know what I actually do. However, like most clergy I do know something about the impression people get of what I do - and I wrote my article based on my impressions about bishops. [...]
Where, however, could I find hard evidence for my thesis? I decided to look at diocesan websites - in fact at every diocesan website for the Church of England - and ask myself three simple questions. First, did the website supply evidence that the diocese concerned had a strategic plan for its mission and ministry? Secondly, was this plan couched in terms of specific goals rather than broad aspirations? Thirdly, was there evidence that the diocesan bishop was providing the lead in strategic planning, rather than delegating it to others? Download the article (pdf)
Monday 8 January 2007
Article (John Richardson): What the web tells us about mission in dioceses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have often wondered about what Bishops do and their level of effectiveness.
You excellent article 'No Particular Place to Go' infers that to bishops are failing to provide a lead in mission, restricting initiatives and restraining expansion; presiding over uncoordinated efforts, misdirected resources, unsupported ministers and unhealed divisions; and that grass roots mission leaders are suspicious of the bishops exercising more power.
Sounds about right to me.
If the bishops are uncomfortable with the above statements perhaps they should provide us with a detailed work-study analysis of their activities.
It could be entitled (using the immortal words of the Bishop of Southwark) “I am a Bishop this is what I do.”
Ballifield: that last line. Very naughty!
I just could not resist it - mea culpa
I suspect that the anonymous episcopal correspondent was probably correct!
Why look at a diocesan web site for such a lead? There are other ways for a diocesan/suffragan bishop to get his message across to clergy and laity.
It can be thought that ministry is mainly through filling web sites or blogs!
kens, to me this is a bit like saying "Why look at a church noticeboard to find out what's going on?" or "Why read the parish magazine to get a feel for the parish?" Ask any diocese (apart from Sodor and Man) and you'll doubtless be told how important the internet is. And the time that has clearly been spent putting these websites together is clearly considerable. I acknowledged in what I wrote that a website doesn't tell the whole story. But the websites tell a real story - sometimes, like old noticeboards, a story of neglect, at other times, a clear sense of things happening.
Post a Comment