What is it all for?

How clear are we about what good looks like for the church today?

Today’s Church of England defaults to improvised and pragmatic responses to its challenges. Perhaps it always has. I suggest that the challenges we face now can only be adequately addressed with rather more clarity of thought than we seem to be able or willing to bring to bear. One of the key matters to which we need to give much more attention is the question of what we are, in the end, here for and what that might look like in our own time.

Two things that have happened recently have got me thinking about the question of the purpose of the church as a distinct feature of the larger question of its identity. The first is the story of the Kerrier deanery in Truro Diocese. The Church Commissioners recently held a hearing in Falmouth to consider a proposal to turn the deanery into a single benefice of 21 churches. A total of 167 objections were made to this reorganisation which was agreed as part of the ‘On the Way’ programme, under which deaneries were given the task of producing plans for a “fruitful and sustainable” future.¹

The proposal has been criticised for, amongst other things; endangering the traditions of the parish churches involved; its dependence on the use of extended communion; its redefinition of the role of a parish priest; and for moving away from the conception of incumbency as the ‘cure of souls’.² It was then defended by a churchwarden from the Truro Diocese on the grounds that it was a well-considered solution of a kind that is required in the reality of today’s church in a diocese like Truro.³

All these points against the proposal seem valid and concerning and yet the suggestion that it is the best available practical solution to the problem caused by decline in attendance and financial resources may also be true. There has been at least one larger benefice in Lincoln Diocese for many years, so the solution is not really that novel either. At the same time it bothers me that the Church of England is so drawn to pragmatic measures that chip away at important features of its mission and identity. Organisations that abandon key aspects of identity in pursuit of short-term objectives tend to end up weaker rather than stronger. I note also that current policy ends up imposing ever greater burdens on the clergy the church does still possess. (As a further side note let me say that, in consequence of developments like this, I find the constant talk of the importance of clergy well-being a little hollow.)

The second thing that happened was I had a conversation with a bishop. We were talking about the national strategy of the Church of England and the recent adoption of a commitment to create a large number of new worshipping communities across the country. Now, at one level this seems reasonable enough, even refreshingly ambitious, if it is combined with supporting the parish church rather than creating a rival to the parish church. But the bishop made a remark to this effect: ‘I want to know what it is all for’, meaning, ‘what does good look like?’ To put it another way, how clear are we what we want these new ventures to achieve? The remark resonated with me because it has seemed to me for some time that the thought process behind a great deal of Church of England planning is something like the following. 1. We are losing people at an impossible rate. 2. We must get more people. 3. We’d better do church differently then. I appreciate that this is a caricature but I do not think it is altogether unfair. We do not need a template, or a set of detailed plans but we do need some clarity about what good likes like.

In order to achieve that clarity we need to first consider the purpose of the organisation - what it is for. This is where all good planning begins, with a renewed appreciation of organisational purpose. So, what is the purpose of the church? That is a big question, but I do not think it is too hard to answer. The church is the Body of Christ, called to continue the mission of Christ. If Christ is our Lord and model, it follows that the realisation of the Kingdom of God must be our ultimate goal, because it was and is Christ’s goal. If we believe that the Kingdom of God was secured by Christ’s death and resurrection and is, at least in part, a present reality, it should be something we aim for now. Further, if the Kingdom of God is a holistic concept, that is, a state of the person and of society and of the whole created order, it means that we should be concerned with having an impact for good in the world. Finally we are called to model and embody the Kingdom to which we point. In short, the church is ‘sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom of God’.⁴ In other words, the church’s purpose is to be part of transformation in and of the world.

Is this contested? I do not see how it can be. But I do not think it is well understood. When I have asked members of congregations what the church is for this is never the answer I am given. Instead, the church is, for many, a kind of self-justifying reality. Everything is about keeping the church going. Evangelical churches are typically more aware of the importance of purpose and tend to see it as focused on obeying the command to make disciples. My response to that is that this is an end in itself, but it is not the end. The end is the union of heaven and earth in a redeemed world. People are called into discipleship for their own salvation but then to help realise this vision of the Kingdom. I would add that I think the work of the Kingdom is likely to be carried out in partnership with people who do not see themselves as disciples at all. It will sometimes be that being such a partner is what leads an individual to discover faith for themselves. This is not a simple linear progression from faith to action. The important point though, is that the multifarious activities of the church should serve and derive from this vision of the Kingdom.

If we know what this ultimate purpose is we can start to think about what it looks in particular times and places, particularly in the light of a clear understanding of the nature and needs of those times and places. By putting all this together we can articulate a less lofty and more practical sense of what good looks like - for new worshipping communities in general and individual communities in particular. The bishop I was speaking to would insist that this must focus on the impact they make in the world and I agree.

I do not know to what extent these perspectives featured in the process that led to the decision to create a single benefice in the Kerrier deanery. Perhaps it would not change the formal outcome. My own experience, however, is that whatever impact the consideration of purpose has on the structures adopted it is essential for securing engagement, releasing energy and driving fruitful activity, all of which are likely to prove more significant than changes of structure. A clear sense of what purpose in action looks like, what good is to be achieved, is the key driver of organisational success. Structural or programmatic solutions can be better or worse but they are less important than a clear, shared commitment to work towards the Christian vision for the world.

1. As reported in The Church Times, 1st May 2026, https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/1-may/news/uk/church-commissioners-to-hold-hearing-on-proposal-for-21-church-benefice-in-truro-diocese

2. See the letters pages of The Church Times 8th and 15th May 2026

3. See the letters page The Church Times 22 May 2026 https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/22-may/comment/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor

4. A commonly used formula, developed by Lesslie Newbigin, but included in the Meissen Declaration published by the Church of England and the German Lutheran Church and found at: https://www.ekd.de/ekd_en/ds_doc/meissen_engl_.pdf