THE parish system in the Church of England has been hotly debated for some years now. As numbers attending church continue to decline, it is getting harder and harder to sustain a presence in every community. It is a bit like a rocky shoreline where, as the tide ebbs, exposes rockpools to the blazing heat of the sun. Smaller pools are most vulnerable, especially those high up the shore, where heat rises sooner and burns for longer. Lower down the shore, and in larger pools, life may seem a little less precarious.

What do creatures in these pools think about their future? Do they feel that they can survive until the tide turns? Should they abandon small pools and congregate down shore in bigger pools? Do those in big, secure pools spare a thought for their fellows in the smaller ones?

The Church 2024 survey, promoted by the Church Times, was a chance to listen to the grassroots of the Church at a time when it is trying to deal with the after-effects of the Covid pandemic, superimposed on long-term pressures on finances and numbers. Some think that the best solution in these circumstances is to take more control from the centre and concentrate resources in large churches where they can have maximum effect. This is an anathema for others, who see it as a threat to the parish system, which is the very essence of the C of E. Meanwhile, many are too busy trying to survive to give any thought to the wider picture.

We wanted to know what people felt about their parish in terms of its financial viability and the general principles that should guide the wider Church. The sample of 3219 clergy and laity who took part in our survey and answered all the questions about parishes seemed to be reasonably representative of the Church as a whole. We presented them with six items with which they could agree or disagree. Their responses are shown in the table. When we analysed the overall figures in more detail, the results confirmed some widely held assumptions, but challenged others.

ONE third of respondents (32 per cent) agreed that their parish was not financially self-sufficient, and almost as many (28 per cent) agreed that their parish could not meet its share of diocesan costs. This has to be a worrying sign, even if the majority do not think this to be so. Fear of financial pressures was greater among those who worship in congregations of less than 50, and it was more keenly appreciated by stipendiary clergy than others. Lay people in large congregations may not understand the perils faced by their fellow worshippers in other parts of the C of E.

A similar proportion (33 per cent) felt that parishes (or benefices) should pay for their clergy. Unsurprisingly, stipendiary parish clergy, whose lives depend indirectly on parish giving, were much more likely to agree with this idea than did lay people (42 per cent versus 29 per cent). Evangelicals were more likely than others to agree with this (36 per cent versus 26 per cent), but even here this was a minority opinion.

There was strong agreement (75 per cent) across the Church that rich parishes should subsidise poor ones. It would be sad if this were not so, as it is surely a fundamental Christian principle. Nonetheless, not all agree, and some laity, especially from larger or Evangelical churches, were slightly less willing than others to see wealth shared rather than concentrated. But this difference was slight and should not be overplayed.

Overall, there was very little support for concentrating resources on larger churches (eight per cent), but slightly more for closing unviable churches (20 per cent). Looking more closely, support for resourcing larger churches was twice as high among those from large congregations of 100+ than others (14 per cent versus seven per cent), and there was a similar difference between Evangelicals and others.

WHAT does this study tell us about the Church? First, about one third of people felt that their parish was struggling financially. This figure rose to a half for people in congregations of less than 50, but was still over one fifth in congregations of more than 100. This was not about rural versus urban parishes, but more about congregation size. Fish in many rock pools are feeling the heat, but especially those in small ones.

Second, there was overwhelming support for sharing resources rather than concentrating them. Fish everywhere want to ensure the survival of the most, not the survival of the fittest. The stereotype of rural parishioners in small congregations demanding help from reluctant parishioners in large urban parishes was not supported by the evidence. Rock pools are connected to one another, not only, it seems, when the tide is in, but when it is out as well.

The Revd Andrew Village is a professor emeritus, and Canon Leslie J. Francis is a visiting professor, at York St John University.

Read the results in detail here.

Take part in their survey on well-being among clergy and lay ministers here or by scanning this QR code with your phone: