What I’m intrigued by is the fact that when it happens in Winchester rather than in Bradford, it hits the news. Is this Southern bias?

So all these arguments have been made before, and some others by myself and others when it first happened. I’m disappointed that we’ve not learned and done something more about it.

I think that an overlooked aspect of this for the CofE is the issue of diocesan reciprocity. By cutting chaplaincy at a university, a diocese is breaking a tacit pact and freeloads off others. The tacit pact is that parents and students can have a sense of security that wherever a student ends up studying, there will be chaplaincy provision, therefore we all do our bit to make sure that such provision is comprehensive -like the parish system. By withdrawing chaplaincy provision for HE a diocese lets others down in the CofE while its own people can enjoy it elsewhere.

My preffered solution to address this would be to have a national HE chaplaincy service (perhaps taking a cue from the Services) with a pooled budget from diocesan and inherited resources; it is becoming clearer that dioceses can’t be trusted, necessarily, with a key, missional, opportunity.

That said, I actually thing the missional issue is the more important: HE chaplaincy is working with an age group which is becoming detached from church, it is often doing so innovatively and credibly.

What I didn’t say there, but which occurs to me now, is perhaps the system of funding is wrong? I gather that the BBC Solent reporter asked Bishop Michael why the Synod had agreed the previous budget for 2010 before they knew what the parishes would be paying. Presumably he didn’t (like many of us) understand how the system works, and he does sort of have a point. But all charities work the same way don’t they? They can’t do anything else surely by the nature of their means of existence. Could we change the system? I don’t know – I failed accounts at Uni!