St Luke's Church Eccleshill, Bradford, UK

Calverley Deanery Pastoral Plan

Here is the text of the paper presented on 27th October 2005 to the Synod, modified by the amendment which was approved at the meeting:

Text of the amended motion:

This synod
a) agrees that "clustering" is the way forward for the Calverley Deanery for mission, pastoral work and the deployment of ministry,
b) considers that the options set out as Option A, Option B and Option C are worthy of further discussion as the basis of the Deanery Pastoral Plan,
c) recognises that there may be other options which may form the basis of the Deanery Pastoral Plan, and requests that these be submitted to the Secretary by 30th November 2005 so that they may be considered further
d) requests each PCC of the Deanery to discuss these options before the next meeting of the Deanery Synod, and consider
i) whether there are any options which the PCC could not countenance,
ii) of the ones the PCC could countenance, whether the PCC has any preference,
and asks the PCC to ensure that its Deanery Synod representatives are fully acquainted with the PCC's views, and
e) hopes to choose one of these options at its next meeting, and
f) intends to ask the deanery clergy, PCCs, and diocesan senior staff to work towards the option which it chooses.

Brief statement about clustering:

We envisage "clustering" as a process by which congregations, PCCs and clergy will begin working together in the mission and pastoral work of the church in the deanery. This will involve:

at the outset, informal agreements to work together in various ways, and doing it!
after a while, expressing joint undertakings to work together, and asking all parties to agree these undertakings, and doing it!
eventually, drawing up formal statements by which clergy and laity know how they will be expected to work across the cluster, and doing it!
putting in place a procedure for involving the whole cluster in appointing future staff.

The three suggested options:

Option A

Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates (3 stipends)

Wrose, Eccleshill, Bolton (2.5 stipends)

St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury, Woodhall (3 stipends)

Pudsey, Farsley (2 stipends)

Tong, Laisterdyke (1.5 stipends)

Option B

Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates, Wrose (4 stipends)

Eccleshill, Bolton, St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury (4 stipends)

Pudsey, Farsley, Woodhall, Tong, Laisterdyke (4 stipends)

Option C

Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates (3 stipends)

Wrose, Eccleshill, Bolton (3 stipends)

St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury, Holme Wood estate, Sutton estate (3 stipends)

Pudsey, Farsley, Woodhall, Tong Village, Tyersall Estate (3 stipends)

Positives: Practical and deliverable with less radical changes and upset than other options.

Negatives: Very small clergy teams, more like partnerships than teams. Doesn't allow for releasing of "mission priests".

Positives: Bigger teams, more flexible and creative, could release "mission posts".

Negatives: Will the laity own it? Do the clusters make any sense geographically?

Positives: Similar sized groups so no sense of competition. Creates groups that have coherence.

Negatives: No history behind some proposed clusters. Divides Tong and Laisterdyke.

There is also a one-side-of-A4 sheet containing this text, in Microsoft Word, size 25k - if you would like a copy, please ask us for one.