St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

Carving up Calverley Deanery

This month sees perhaps the most important meeting for our area during my time so far at Eccleshill. The Deanery Synod will be attempting to decide between plans to “cluster” of our 15 parishes. That means that for now the churches will try to work together instead of each being independent, and for the future the paid posts (i.e. clergy) will be appointed with multi-church responsibilities instead of being vicars of single parishes.

What does it mean for churches to “work together” in a cluster?

Perhaps that’s the biggest unanswered question. To begin with they’ll help each other out with clergy meeting regularly, joint activities and support for things like our ‘ViTal’, a work which needs more than one church for it to be viable and exciting. Further down the line we expect that clergy will have job descriptions which require them to work together, and each cluster will have a team of lay people (readers, musicians, sick visitors, pastors ...) who will work across the group.

But at the moment there is no blueprint, and no requirement that all the clusters will operate the same way. I think it’s likely that the churches in the northern group will cooperate closely, whereas the ones in the southern grouping will maintain much greater independence in their activities.

What clustering options are on offer? Four. They all have:

a group in the north (Calverley, Idle, Greengates, Thorpe Edge),
a loose grouping in the south (Pudsey, Farsley, Tong, Laisterdyke), and
a group in the middle (St Augustine’s & St Clement’s).

Where they differ is in two issues:

The Thornbury / Woodhall question: Woodhall is really part of Pudsey whereas Thornbury has a population similar to that in Barkerend and Undercliffe. But the two churches are similar in worship styles. So should they be split up between middle and south - or should they go together, and if so in which group?
How should Wrose, Bolton and Eccleshill be allocated to groups, bearing in mind that the groups have to be large enough to be viable?

If you’d like more details, the “Deanery” page on our web site has the discussion document which you can read for yourself.

Or again, perhaps this won’t be decision time? Maybe the Deanery Synod will reject all plans? Maybe the churches will refuse to share burdens and devil take the ones whose vicars leave first? Maybe the whole thing will be chaos? I hope and pray it doesn’t turn out that way!

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. February 2006, Page 1.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (February 2006) Deanery Plan, Mark, Song, Question. Other articles on church organisation. Previous article with a map.	Carving up Calverley Deanery This month sees perhaps the most important meeting for our area during my time so far at Eccleshill. The Deanery Synod will be attempting to decide between plans to “cluster” of our 15 parishes. That means that for now the churches will try to work together instead of each being independent, and for the future the paid posts (i.e. clergy) will be appointed with multi-church responsibilities instead of being vicars of single parishes. What does it mean for churches to “work together” in a cluster? Perhaps that’s the biggest unanswered question. To begin with they’ll help each other out with clergy meeting regularly, joint activities and support for things like our ‘ViTal’, a work which needs more than one church for it to be viable and exciting. Further down the line we expect that clergy will have job descriptions which require them to work together, and each cluster will have a team of lay people (readers, musicians, sick visitors, pastors ...) who will work across the group. But at the moment there is no blueprint, and no requirement that all the clusters will operate the same way. I think it’s likely that the churches in the northern group will cooperate closely, whereas the ones in the southern grouping will maintain much greater independence in their activities. What clustering options are on offer? Four. They all have: a group in the north (Calverley, Idle, Greengates, Thorpe Edge), a loose grouping in the south (Pudsey, Farsley, Tong, Laisterdyke), and a group in the middle (St Augustine’s & St Clement’s). Where they differ is in two issues: The Thornbury / Woodhall question: Woodhall is really part of Pudsey whereas Thornbury has a population similar to that in Barkerend and Undercliffe. But the two churches are similar in worship styles. So should they be split up between middle and south - or should they go together, and if so in which group? How should Wrose, Bolton and Eccleshill be allocated to groups, bearing in mind that the groups have to be large enough to be viable? If you’d like more details, the “Deanery” page on our web site has the discussion document which you can read for yourself. Or again, perhaps this won’t be decision time? Maybe the Deanery Synod will reject all plans? Maybe the churches will refuse to share burdens and devil take the ones whose vicars leave first? Maybe the whole thing will be chaos? I hope and pray it doesn’t turn out that way! John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 22nd January 2006.