It intrigues me that Church of England bishops seem to be regarded by the public today much as they were when I was consecrated to be one in 1970: namely as \u201ca good thing for the country\u201d\u009d at best, and at worst an amiable irrelevance. Perhaps this is because (as current polls suggest) most people still perceive themselves as believers in God.<\/p>\n
None the less, I have come to the conclusion that too many bishops are being appointed for the health of the Church. As it is difficult for serving clergy to agree openly with this view (partly out of loyalty to their bishop, partly because some of them might become bishops themselves), I hope that among the million-or-so faithful in the pews, someone might ponder my argument.<\/p>\n
A few statistics first:<\/p>\n
1. In 1961, there were 13,500 full-time parochial clergy in our Church; currently there are 8616.<\/p>\n
2. In 1961, there were the same number of dioceses as there are now, 44; so there were and are 44 diocesan bishops. But the number of suffragan\/area\/provincial bishops (all full-time) has grown from 44 in 1961 to 70 now. Thus there are now 114 bishops responsible for 9000 clergy, whereas, less than 50 years ago, there were 88 bishops shepherding 13,500 clergy.<\/p>\n