THE Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, who chairs the Triennial Funding Working Group (TFWG), introduced to the General Synod on the Friday the “ambitious financial package” agreed with the Archbishops’ Council.
A total of £1.6 billion would be distributed from 2026 to 2028 — the largest distribution in the Church’s history, she said. This included £236 million available via bids in the Diocesan Investment Programme (DIP); a 30-per-cent increase in Lowest Income Communities (LInC) Funding to £133 million; and additional support of £200 million for dioceses, over a nine-year period. Most of the latter would be allocated in line with population wealth, although some would be through the DIP.
Other spending plans include raising the stipend and, therefore, lifting the starting pension rate, to address clergy well-being. Diocesan apportionment would be abolished, and the current funding areas covered by “Votes 1-5” at the Synod would be covered nationally, though a single ministry training fund would receive contributions from dioceses on a means-tested basis.
This was an “integrated whole”, Bishop Mullally said, which came “with a word of caution about the dangers of well-intended amendments which may have outcomes which we might not expect or might not work”.
The First Church Estates Commissioner, Alan Smith, said that the Church Commissioners sought to make “the maximum sustainable distribution to the support the Church’s mission. We do not hold back.” But this had to be consistent with principles of intergenerational equity, acknowledging the “uncertain geopolitical times with lower returns forecast for decades ahead”. A reserved buffer of £50 million was in place for this.
Dr John Mason (Chester) asked for more information about the Church Commissioners’ “risk appetite”.
Mr Smith said that, as an in-perpetuity fund, the Commissioners were tasked with ensuring that their money lasted “until the day before Jesus returns. . . Therein lies the complexity of the calculation.” Assets had to grow to be able to cover inflation.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, suggested that, “on current long-term trends, unless he really hurries up, there won’t be a Church of England when Lord Saviour returns. There will just be big fat bank balance. Should we not be investing far more so that we can grow and start generating income in other ways?”
Mr Smith argued that this was “exactly what this settlement does”. Of the £1.6 billion, he challenged Bishop North: “You go and find anywhere where anyone has injected that level of increased investment.”
Bishop Mullally concurred that “hard choices” had had to be made. The TFWG had heard funding bids in excess of £2 billion when only £1.6 billion was available. She also mentioned savings targets for the Bishops’ and Archbishops’ costs, currently set at £146 million, but they had been tasked with saving five per cent by 2028 and ten per cent by 2031.
The Revd Jonathan Macy (Southwark) raised the subject of churches in wealthy dioceses that did not receive LInC money.
The chair of the Finance Committee, Carl Hughes (Southwark), said that there were no plans to review this formula, but he encouraged generosity within dioceses.
Carolyn Graham (Guildford) asked whether the TFWG was satisfied that the abolition of apportionment would cover the cost of the increase in stipends, which would be borne by dioceses, in all cases.
Mr Hughes said that dioceses as a whole would be £12 million better off, but that this level varied by diocese, and seven would be “slightly worse off”. When it came to pensions, he said, a new ordinand aged 26 and due to retire at 68 would have a pension that was 60 per cent higher under the new rules: £23,000 plus a lump sum of £70,000. A parish priest who had joined the pension scheme at the age of 28 in 2010 would have £22,000 plus a sum of £66,700.
Bishop Mullally was grateful for the “continued generosity and faithfulness of thousands of people in parishes and worshipping communities that provide the majority of the funding and resources needed to live out our shared calling”.
Mr Hughes said that, having giving advisers in all but one diocese had had a “very significant impact on the level of giving”.
The Revd Alex Frost (Blackburn) was concerned about the amount of money “sloshing around”. He challenged bishops to “visit some of the urban parishes that we are part of and representing. We get nothing. I’ll leave it at that.” He wanted to speak for “estate ministry where it’s a battle every day. We have to beg, borrow, not steal. But sometimes it feels we need to go there.”
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans) emphasised the need to train more deaf clergy, of whom, she said, there were just three.
The Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board, Clive Mather, confirmed that there was a commitment to recompensating, through backdating, those clergy disadvantaged by having retired since 2021, during a period of high inflation.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) reported that the reduction in the racial- and social-justice budget had “hit very hard” at the recent conference on racial justice and theological education.
Bishop Mullally reflected that the work of the TFWG had started too late, in October. She reiterated that the racial-justice funding for 2023-25 had been a “one-off payment”, and that the £12 million allocated was more than had been envisaged; but communications “could have been better”.
Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford) made a plea for areas of rural poverty.
Mr Hughes said that this had been the subject of “extensive discussion” within the SMMIB and that, in addition to LInC, funding, “quite a substantial amount” of DIP grants had gone to rural projects. “We are working with a number of archdeacons to ensure that we have a full understanding of the needs of rural parishes.”
Jeanette Appleton (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) emphasised that “people who are deaf will tell you they are not disabled.”
THE Synod welcomed the spending plans on Saturday. Introducing the debate, Bishop Mullally said that the Church Commissioners had made a “huge step up” in their distributions.
The Revd Lesley Jones (Durham) spoke as a parish priest in Jarrow — among the four per cent of poorest parishes and a recipient of LInC. She recalled that the Jarrow March of 1936 had received “little response” at 10 Downing Street at the time, but Sir John Jarvis, a committed, devout Christian, who was then MP for Guildford, had brought “hope, opportunity, work, and amenities” to Jarrow.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Revd Lesley Jones (Durham) speaks as a parish priest in Jarrow, among the four per cent of poorest parishes and a recipient of LINC
She had met his granddaughter in St Paul’s, Jarrow. “As a result of [Sir John’s] action, there are generations living in south Tyneside who would not have been there. had he not been so deeply moved by their plight,” Ms Jones said.
But there were still many people and churches in South Tyneside struggling to pay their way. “We watch as churches around us go into decline and close, not because of a lack of faith or action or compassion and care, but because there is little or no money in the community.”
The Revd Dr Christopher Landau (Lichfield), director of ReSource for Anglican Renewal Ministries, voiced his “profound concern” about the health and viability of full-time residential training. He referred to answers to written Synod questions showing that the proportion of ordinands on this path had fallen from 46 per cent in 2014 to just 20 per cent in 2024. Half the relevant TEIs had an intake of just five students or fewer in the current academic year. These colleges faced a “stark and existential challenge”, he said. He urged the Synod not “wash its hands of the future of residential training if we want to be a Church marked by depth of theological and spiritual renewal”.
Clare Williams (Norwich) welcomed the commitment to addressing clergy well-being through a financial response, but warned that financial hardship could produce other challenges, including mental-health crises. There was a need to standardise support in mental health and counselling, she said.
The Revd Clair Jaquiss (Chester) told the story of a retired priest, Fr Robert, who was nearly 90 and continued to assist in parish ministry. Ten years ago, he had realised that the present house provided by the Pensions Board for him and his wife would not be suitable as they aged. They had no family, but a support network of local friends.
Properties in other, distant parts of the country had been offered. Every property that he and his archdeacon had suggested had been rejected. The housing team had requested an occupational-therapy assessment, which concluded that his house was unsuitable, but this had been lost. Another assessment had come to the same conclusion, but, at this point, new properties were no longer being bought. Alterations to the couple’s house had been suggested, along with aids and adaptations. Another assessment had been suggested. In the mean time, Fr Robert had become the carer for his wife. He had experienced, Ms Jaquiss said, “ten years of stress and failure. This is not justice or compassion for a faithful servant.”
The Revd Robert Sutherland (Leeds) spoke as a member of the estates-evangelism task group and the vicar of a parish in the 3.5 per cent most deprived in the country. From the outside, his parishioners were regarded as the “undeserving poor” — but. from the inside, they were “generous, caring, hard-working, gifted”. His heart had been “strangely warmed” by news of the increase in LInC, but there was a need for accountability and transparency, he said. “We are not the Church for the poor, but the Church of the poor, ministering together.”
Julie Dziegel (Oxford) said that about 70 per cent of diocesan budgets were stipends and costs including pension contributions. Under the proposals to increase the stipend, these costs would increase “substantially”. Without central help, this would be unaffordable for dioceses, she said, “but, with central help, dioceses have still lost control of the vast majority of their budgets.
“The result of these spending plans is that all dioceses have become dependent on central funding over which they have no control. This is wrong. If we want a centrally controlled Church, which I don’t think we do, . . . we should debate the concept properly and make a decision. We must not sleep-walk into centralisation achieved by control of money.” She would be voting against the motion.
Nic Tall (Bath & Wells) moved a “friendly” amendment requesting that 75 per cent of the £236 million allocated to the Diocesan Investment Programme be allocated directly to diocesan stipend funds (DSFs). The impression of “rude health” given in the spending plans did not connect with the reality that he saw in the diocese. Many dioceses were selling off clergy houses, using capital as revenue “just to make ends meet”. Putting money directly into DSFs would “relieve pressure across the whole system, a rising tide lifting all boats”. Three diocesan secretaries had told him that the overall package would not leave them better off.
Bishop Mullally warned of “unintended consequences” of the amendment. The TFWG had developed “carefully costed plans which balance a full range of obligations and priorities”. Within the plans for the next triennium, there was direct formula funding, including an increase in LInC and additional support for dioceses. A significant proportion of DIP for 2024 to 2026 funding had already been earmarked in principle. If the amendment was passed, dioceses would lose the funding they were expecting. “While it may look straightforward to exchange one type of funding for another, the distribution framework is much more complicated, and a change like this would have far-reaching consequences for the spending plans overall.”
She told the Synod: “We cannot pick and choose from the menu. This is an integrated package and unravelling it at this late stage will have unintended consequences for the Church, dioceses, parishes, and mission.”
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) supported the amendment. As a priest serving in a post-industrial community, she was concerned that that new initiatives would be favoured over existing work that was less visible. Much was spent on bidding, reporting, and administration.
James Wilson (Manchester) spoke of his ten-year experience as a local councillor, when he had noticed that many good local charities lost out to bigger organisations when it came to securing contracts, because they were not good at writing bids. “I fear we have imported bad habits from the public sector into the Church.” The NCIs did not have a “monopoly on wisdom . . The best people to decide how to invest for mission are the people in your diocese, whether or not they have the time or skills to write good funding bids.”
The Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham Usher, a member of Commissioners’ Assets Committee, warned that the proposal to pay money straight into DSFs would require more liquidity than the current calculations assumed. Before the Synod was a “carefully prepared package with such good news in it . . . We simply cannot start pulling away at one or two strands, because we will find that, pretty quickly, the whole package will start to unravel.”
The Revd Mark Wallace (Guildford), the Area Dean of Woking, said that the Council — famous for “the biggest bankruptcy in Britain” — owed £2 billion. “I just want to caution us against the thought that people on the ground always know best, because, if the people on the ground are not experts in what they are doing, if they are not well-versed in mission and ministry, they will not spend money that is sent to them wisely and well.”
Prebendary Rosie Austin (Exeter) had arrived in small deep-rural parishes ten years ago full of energy with plans for eight churches. In the mean time, she had learned that God “delighted in the small, the unexpected, the fragile, and the broken”, and she had given up on “extravagant mission plans”. But when churches were “nurtured in love, prayer, and discipleship, surprising fruit emerges”, she found. The SMMIB model was “not well suited to the small, surprising, the fragile”. Green shoots were not being nurtured.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), challenged the rhetoric of the debate. SMMIB projects were “designed locally”, he insisted. Aims were set and measured. SDF funding that was used for church-planting was “one of the main keys used to rescue and support churches in poorer areas”. They were not big and flashy, but focused on the neediest parts of the country, served by local clergy. There were non-SDF-funded churches that could “do with bit of reporting and accountability that SMMIB projects have”. When people asked for more priests, he wanted to ask, “When did you last send one from your church?”
The amendment was lost in all Houses: Bishops 25-3, with one recorded abstention; Clergy 97-58, with eight recorded abstentions; and Laity 89-68, with 12 recorded abstentions.
The Revd Martin Poole (Chichester) moved an amendment requesting that racial and disability justice be allocated separate budgets, putting the former at £20 million and the latter at £5.7 million. In February, the Synod had voted for resourcing racial-justice work, and yet there was a proposal to reduce funding to £12 million and an expectation that two marginalised groups would “fight it out”.
The report Behind the Stained Glass had pointed to a gap between what the Church said that it wanted to achieve and lived experience, and this was exemplified by the lack of funding. Lord Boateng had held up at the Synod a long list of promises on racial justice previously made and not fulfilled. “Don’t perpetuate that scandal by doing the same,” he said.
Daniel Matovu (Oxford) suggested that the leadership of the Church “cares little, at least for racial and disability justice”. In February, the Synod had voted overwhelmingly to support the work of racial justice in a motion accompanied by a paper proposing that funding be maintained at £20 million for the next triennium. “It looks as if racial and disability justice have been asked to share the leftovers at the bottom of the basket,” he said. “We don’t want your words of pity, your lament, your commitments. We are tired of your approval of recommendations and motions without adequate resources to take effective action.”
The Revd Dr Charlie Baczyk-Bell (Southwark) said that the Synod had to “do better in listening to the way that our decisions and the reasons behind them are received by those to whom they most apply”. The slave trade, injustice, discrimination, and prejudice remained “part of the fabric of our Church, and it is our stated responsibility to try to repair that fabric. . . This is a sacrifice, but is as nothing compared to the debt that we owe.”
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) lamented assumptions being made in the speeches so far, warning that, in the past, the Synod had “had an urgency about an issue, made a last-minute decision, tinkered with detailed working . . . and, as a result, had seriously damaging unintended consequences”.
Busola Sodeinde (London), a Church Commissioner, said that the concerns expressed were “deeply valid”, but that the funding had been intended as a one-off time-limited “kick start”, not a sustained source of financial support. There were “many competing demands” to be heard, but she would “wholeheartedly welcome further financial investment, should it become available”.
Fiona MacMillan (London), a member of the Committee for Ministry of and Among Deaf and Disabled People and the national Disability Task Group, supported the amendment. She warned that there was “very little money going to disability work in dioceses”. It was not a priority in an era of deficits.
The amendment was lost, falling in two Houses: Bishops 7-13, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 89-52, with 18 recorded abstentions; and Laity 75-80, with 12 recorded abstentions.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) welcomed the Ministry Training Fund. Having a centralised administration would reduce the burden on dioceses, so that they were not subject to a limit for training costs and decisions about pathways could be based purely on what was right for the candidate. He also welcomed plans to improve maintenance grants, which would be linked to the Living Wage.
Canon Alice Kemp (Bristol) asked for funding streams to be connected to the work of the Disability Task Group.
The Acting Bishop of St Albans, the Rt Revd Richard Atkinson, the Bishop of Bedford, said that disability funding had been released only in the last year of the triennium, hence the underspend, but that almost all the money would be used by the end of this triennium.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
