It’s long since time we did away with the idea of tainted hands, and accepted our differences of opinion in love without the ridiculous idea of flying bishops. It’s God who blesses people according to God’s will, regardless of who is asking.
David Hawkins
1 day ago
“These painful reports serve as a stark reminder that victims and survivors are asking for – and deserve – more than words of lament. They call us to action.” This is followed by a totally complacent description of the existing safeguarding structure. Isn’t it patently obvious that if the “professional” safeguarding bureaucracy was really professional then the Church of England wouldn’t be in this mess? I don’t want “action” Archbishop, I don’t need or want a pay off I just need proper pastoral care in other words I just need some Christian love from just one of the priests in… Read more »
Ian Hobbs
1 day ago
As a retired with PTO who received the ABofY letter:
In the currrent circumstances tagging on the Bishops by using brackets annoyed me. The episcopate first and foremost might have been more appropriate. Or am I being unreasonable?
Crucial question…who becomes the employer for whom?
” It may also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to increase accountability (including that of bishops) and possibly ask the question as to whether clergy should become employees.”
Fr Andrew
1 day ago
“It may also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to increase accountability”
That sounds really good for clergy wellbeing. Without AB Stephen being more specific about what he means this sounds like another episcopal power grab.
Who are the bishops going to be employed by? Employment implies the direction of your work by your employer, who then compensates your lack of freedom to spend your time as you choose, by giving you remuneration. So who will fulfill this role for the bishops?
Bishops, like parish clergy, become the employees of their diocese. Diocesan synod would then hold its diocesan to account, in the same manner as a non-executive board of directors in respect of its chief executive officer.
Presumably if the diocese were the employer, then it would be the Diocesan Board of Finance that would be the actual employer, as it is of diocesan office staff. Ultimately decisions would, in company law, lie with the directors of the DBF, whoever they might be. In many dioceses (but not I think all) the directors of the DBF are the members of the Bishop’s Council which is elected by (and is the standing committee of) the diocesan synod. At the moment bishops are paid directly by the Church Commissioners rather than by their diocese, so another possibility would be… Read more »
I agree. It seems very unfair that senior clergy have more job security by virtue of their office-holder status than diocesan or cathedral lay staff who are governed by much less secure contracts of employment.
Flying scotsman
1 day ago
Whilst understanding the reasons why Justin Welby had to resign. I find it a bit odd that his standing down has not really been marked. i wasnt expecting a grand farewell as thats not appropriate but for the Archbishop of York to mention ihim only once in his letter just seems a bit rude. I get that the Welby Family. just want to slip away. But they have contributed a lot in the past decade I hope that at some point there can be a reconciliation because that was a theme of their ministry I say the family because ministry… Read more »
Reconciliation with whom? The survivors of church abuse who have fared so badly during Welby’s tenure? Perhaps, after some time out and some healing, Welby might be able to genuinely listen empathetically to survivors and victims and offer some kind of meaningful apology and restitution. I can’t see reconciliation happening in any other way – but I don’t hold out much hope for it.
The lack of any acknowledgement of what he has achieved – and the significant personal cost to Justin and Caroline – is I think deeply sad and a product of the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. I hope Christian history will not judge us too harshly. Much of what they have achieved will be well below the radar; pastoral conversations with all sorts of people in the public eye, visits to places which were worried they had even forgotten and pastoral letters to individuals and, of course, as with all of us, we shall never know this side… Read more »
Richard Ashby
1 day ago
Stand alone services for same sex couples are already approved by Synod. No further consideration is either necessary or required. What is necessary is for the approval to be implemented and soon. Or is this yet another attempt by the bishops to row back on Synod’s decision and postpone the day when they have to act? I was interested to hear on the radio the other day a commentator say that when the bishops get to gather they fight like rats in a sack. Is this why they can’t make any decisions and why the church is in such an… Read more »
That’s not quite how liturgical authorization works, I think. Authorised services (which are alternative to services in the BCP) must be authorized by all three Houses of the General Synod, and the final form of the texts must have been introduced to the Synod by the House of Bishops. As for commended services, the final text is determined by the House of Bishops and is commended by them. An earlier vote in the Synod is a request to the House of Bishops to proceed, but it is the prerogative of that House to determine what shall be introduced and when.
Simon you are right on process – the suite of resources called the Prayers of Love and Faith have been commended by the House of Bishops for use, that is clergy may use them if they wish. They have not been authorised. Richard is also correct that standalone services incorporating the PLF material are possible for clergy to use now, and does not require further permission from the House of Bishops. Essentially the commendation by the HoB confirmed their view that the PLF material is not contrary to or indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of… Read more »
TimP
1 day ago
Lots of things to comment on… I want to pick up “and possibly ask the question as to whether clergy should become employees” I remember a number of years ago thinking the change from ‘Freehold’ ‘Common-tenure’ was doing that… then realising it didn’t was still a type of office-holding. I wonder if anyone would like to explain/defend the value in being office-holders rather than employees? For the individual and the Church? Certainly a number of the high-profile criticism recently (I’m referring to vicars who couldn’t be fired even though “everyone knew”) may have been fixed if they had been employees.… Read more »
Would the Oxford movement, or the Evangelical revival within the C of E have been possible without the independence of thought and action enabled by Freehold office holding? There’s enough grey conformist managerialism within the C of E already. My subversive take is that greater localism and organisational looseness will be more fertile for renewal and revival, than an ever burgeoning culture of control and compliance. But I guess some TA voices would rather call for better managers, rather than fewer, or less empowered of the same.
It was the Bishop of Blackburn who recently raised the question of clergy being employed. I have supported this personally not because I want more managerial structure but because I want greater accountability and support, nether of which is well served under Common Tenure. Alongside being a priest I have also worked for the BBC and for a national third sector organisation. The most striking contrasts in both those contexts was having genuine accountability and receiving genuine support, both of which have been either lacking or poorly delivered in my nearly 40 years of stopendiary ministry.
Fair enough, but how is it going to be resourced, and what are we going to cut to provide the funds for ‘greater accountability and support’, or what should we stop doing in order to focus on it?
I, too, have worked for organisations outside the Church, and for public bodies whilst also a priest. I think you’re absolutely right, but your experience (and mine) should not be assumed to be indicative of any improvement being guaranteed by a move from office holding to employee status for clergy. I greatly doubt the accountability of senior clergy, particularly Bishops, will be improved. Accountability to whom? How willing will such a person be to actually hold them to account? I also doubt better support will result. Many companies offer extremely poor ongoing training and pay no attention at all to… Read more »
I am not sure it’s an argument for keeping it, but it raises difficult questions about self-supporting/unpaid/non-stipendiary ordained ministry. How will it be possible to have unpaid employees, especially if in long-term open-ended roles (e.g. self-supporting associate minister/vicar)? If it’s not possible to make it work, legally, then what will happen to the self-supporting clergy of the Church of England? Will it/they be abolished? What impact would that have on parishes and chaplaincies? The CofE has come to rely quite significantly on self-supporting ordained ministry, even if I had noticed a recent shift to promote lay ministry over self-supporting ordained… Read more »
What is the status of Special Constables or reservists in the armed forces? Are they employees? Not an exact comparison with NSM or retired clergy with PTO, I know.
Not sure with special Constable. Reservists definitely are employees, and are paid when on reservist business according to their reservist rank I know people who stay in the reserves primarily for the boost to income.
Although, having said that, they come under the heading of ‘crown servants’ which does – or used to – exempt them from all sorts of legislation….
Andrew Godsall
1 day ago
I find this letter from Archbishop Stephen profoundly disappointing. Platitude after platitude, all well meaning, but without grasping at all the fact that the CofE is in dire straits. He seems to be suggesting that if we just tinker with a few things then all will be well. No hint that a total reform of governance is needed for one thing. No suggestion that the AC must go. No acknowledgment of the disaster that the Strategic Development Fund and the whole vision and strategy stuff has unleashed. And then he lobs in a suggestion that clergy should become employees. Fine.… Read more »
Kate Keates
1 day ago
I would summarise this as:
“I am not resigning”
James Allport
1 day ago
Presumably, were clergy to become employees, the church’s current exemptions under equality legislation would have to be re-negotiated? That might be challenging.
Not sure about that. I think you can employ someone to do Christian work in a church e.g. as a Youth Worker and apply exemptions. I’m not convinced that employing clergy will improve the church, but I think you could still insist that only Christians apply.
As I understand it – other churches have their leaders as employees not office holders. Older-others have office-holders.
So that shouldn’t be a barrier.
Thanks for the correction! Mr Reaney won his discrimination case because he was able to convince the tribunal that he would in future conform to Issues. By contrast, Canon Pemberton, an NHS employee in a same-sex marriage, lost his case because of the religious exemption. His bishop removed his permission to officiate so he could no longer function as a hospital chaplain. A change of employment status for parish clergy wouldn’t remove the exemption; it would require reform of equality legislation.
David Runcorn
1 day ago
The Archbishop, in his letter which I personally found helpful, makes the suggestion that clergy need a more formal employment structure. The idea is not a new one. In The Times today, Professor Linda Woodhead observes what a big change this would be and notes ‘if clergy become employees they are then subject to the same codes of discipline and conduct as the rest of us. This would certainly solve some of our current problems around dealing with clergy sexual misconduct.’ Precisely. What is the problem? In the same Times article Fr Marcus Walker, like others here, can only see… Read more »
Independence is two edged. It can enable fertile creativity and prophetic boldness. It can veil laziness and worse. Compliance cultures can arguably make us safer, and even more efficient in some ways. But they can tend towards blandness and intellectual incuriosity. The comparison between the teachers who educated me in the 1970s-80s and those in schools today is stark. But of course schools are much safer places so we have gained more than we have lost. Though … if the Bishop of Newcastle were a subordinate employee to the ABY as a line manager, would things have played out in… Read more »
David, I think the issue is one of trust rather than a desire for independence. Given the, to be generous, fallible and ofttimes incompetent exercise of current episcopal powers it’s difficult to welcome the idea of giving bishops even more power, to wreak more damage on the church. More powers in matters of safeguarding, sexual misconduct etc. of course, who could argue against that? But it won’t stop there will it? And will ‘sexual misconduct’ be defined by secular law or some notion of biblical ethics, thus giving conservatives free rein to hound LGBT people? Morale is at a nadir… Read more »
But wouldn’t the same changes in employment structure also be applied to bishops. They would become employees also. So it might be possible, perhaps for the first time, to properly hold bishops to account.
I note that the army recently had no problems court-martialling and sacking a major general for sexual misconduct. Seniority need not be a bar to accountability if the governance structure are right.
If a bishop had an extra-marital affair, or was revealed to be a fornicator, or behaved in some other sexually inappropriate way, they could be made subject to a CDM complaint, could they not (like any member of the clergy?). What would employment status do to change this?
I would argue against more powers in matters of safeguarding for this reason. It is very hard to impose safety from above. We need a bottom up church not more of top down managerialism. Last Sunday I was privileged to attend online a Confirmation and Baptism service at Newport Cathedral..Each young person read a statement saying why they wanted to be confirmed. They were all very nervous of course but to me it was exceeding important because it was a formal recognition of the voice of each young person. If you have a voice, if you are valued and respected,… Read more »
Beautifully put, and as the recent Civitas report on parishes points out: there is on average one functionary for every three clergy employed by the CofE, making inquisition-like levels of supervision and control possible if we grant them even more power. The most administratively-heavy charities have a ratio of 1/13 to 1/20, by comparison.
More than one thing can be true at once. Yes, one well-aired issue is the difficulties of removing misbehaving clergy, and employment status would help that issue. But another well-aired issue is the trend to managerialism, and employment status would make that much worse. Presumably we can acknowledge the one without denying the other.
John, thank you for saying this so succinctly. From another angle, it’s true that AB Cottrell is clever and articulate, kind and generous; he’s a talented writer and steeped in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. It’s also true that his managerial history in Chelmsford looks woeful: the diocese was struggling when he arrived and on its knees when he left. Great as a pastor and teacher (which really is what a bishop is for is it not?); less successful, to say the least, in management. I hasten to add that I think managerialism is not the solution to the Church of England… Read more »
David I think you raise very fair questions but I do want to respond further. Firstly, I haven’t read Linda Woodhead’s piece but why does she single out sexual misconduct, and what does she mean by it? Would clergy in same sex partnerships become more vulnerable if they were employees? Would single clergy staying over with their boyfriends or girlfriends be subject to ‘discipline’? Because I suspect they all would. And what about clergy who gossip? Clergy who lie? Clergy who discriminate against women? I would be surprised if Linda is fixated on sex but I know the CofE is… Read more »
I’d aver that a changeover to Employment status won’t solve more problems than it creates, and may prove a significant piece of time- and energy- consuming displacement activity. If a vicar is to be an employee rather than an office holder, she’ll need meaningful supervision/direction from a line-manager who truly knows their context and community. The Bishop? The Archdeacon? Pull the other one. The plausible candidate is the Area/Rural Dean. But they would need significant releasing from parochial duties to find the time to do this new job properly. Where’s the money to be found to enable this? And what… Read more »
Many professional jobs entail a great deal of freedom in terms of role and day-to-day organisation, especially in this era of working remotely. So nothing needs to change in the relationship between a vicar and his or her superiors except contractuially, by means of an upgrade of common tenure terms of service into contract of employments . Employee status would give parish clergy enhanced employment rights and the ability to claim constructive unfair dismissal for breach of contract. By the same token, in the two widely-reported cases in Blackburn and Chelmsford, it would have been possible to terminate the contracts… Read more »
I’m not at all sure about the plausibility of Area Deans for this supervisory role. In my experience in one diocese, it is a very minor ‘honorary’ role with little or no specific training and few responsibilities save for chairing the deanery synod and helping with cover for illness and leave. It seems to be passed around among the relevant incumbents for limited periods. Locally the appointment of assistant archdeacons, not always as an adjunct to an incumbency, appears to be gaining ground, further increasing the top-heavy managerial structure and depleting the resources available for front-line parochial jobs.
I’ve written something on the ‘doubled edged’ value of employee status in response to Nicholas Henshall above. I won’t repeat it here, but like some others I have some serious doubts about how guaranteed improvements would be, even if they appear to be so in a ‘paper exercise’ analysis.
Francis James
1 day ago
I find it curious that with regard to CofE clergy becoming employees nobody has pointed out the advantages to clergy in their relations with those above them. It would certainly make union membership more obviously attractive, and I may say that in the charitable sector (a reasonable comparison) CEOs really hate it when you say that you need to bring in your union rep before continuing the disciplinary discussion they have started. Actually in my experience they would far prefer people to be naïve enough not to be union members (“after all, we are a charity”), as unions will pursue… Read more »
Not arguing with your assertions which seem reasonable. But if this debate is conducted in terms of ‘what’s most advantageous for… clergy, bishops, laity… etc. etc.’ then haven’t we given up being the family of God, body of Christ, holy nation etc. etc. Turning us into a set of competing interest groups isn’t going to nurture the Kingdom, may I opine. But probably too late.
I think it’s fair to say employee status brings advantages and disadvantages. Employee status could be an advantage when things go wrong- an end to church lawyers arguing ‘office holders can’t be unfairly dismissed’ which is a favourite of the C of E at tribunals. On the other hand lots of clergy are already in Unite’s faith branch and do utilise their support in the current situation. Employment status may bring problems if it encourages more managerialism which, as it’s the ABY’s suggestion that has us all discussing it, can’t be discounted as an outcome. And bear in mind this… Read more »
Oliver Harrison
20 hours ago
A few bad priests are being used to justify another power grab by the control freaks in purple. I suspect — although I’m no expert — that York couldn’t have got rid of Tudor even if he had been an employee. And ++Stephen still made him Rural Dean despite knowing what he did about him. Why? (History buffs will note that York vs Tudor rarely ends well for either party or the church.) We all know that hard cases make bad laws. Still I reckon it will happen. Possibly at new appointments or as a condition of PTO for stipendiary… Read more »
Laity may need to have a concern about their Vicar being employed rather than holding office. I suspect it will be easier for the powers that be to make her redundant when the money to employ her runs out (which will happen all the more quickly once all the necessary middle management jobs have been framed and filled).
The post of Vicar of A+B will be easier to extinguish, and a new job of Rector of A, C and D created, which (intentionally?) may or may not be attractive to the Vicar to apply for.
One possible benefit of clergy becoming employees is that we could lose the annual panic about doing a tax return. I’ve long thought it a nonsense now that we no longer receive additional income from fees or glebe, and it would be a relief to have all that simply dealt with through the PAYE system.
The tax return takes me less than half an hour and that’s with additional pages (property, investments). I keep a hard (photo) copy and use it as the basis for the following year.
Fr Dean
15 hours ago
No one has mentioned the Archbishop’s hints at pay rises for the clergy. Given that stipends and clerical pensions have failed to keep pace with inflation in recent years, I would imagine the clergy will be more interested in cash in their pockets than whether they’re office holders or employees. Common tenure is an employment contract in all but name with all of the responsibilities but very few of the benefits of employment. As employees women clergy would have a field day at the Employment Tribunal given the dioceses’ haphazard approach to maternity rights and the like. Compulsory retirement ages… Read more »
Employment for clergy might put a stop to the supposedly ‘half-time’ posts that require the post-holder to work Sundays and three other days each week.
Fr Dexter, imagine applying for one of these posts and asking what other three days you were expected to work so that you could find employment for the rest of the week? House for duty posts are an even bigger deception. I saw an advertisement for a HfD post; four parishes, two church schools and three open churchyards. The prospective candidates were informed that they would be a visible presence in all the parishes, be a governor in both schools and lead collective worship. The ‘reward’ – a Rectory with an oil fired boiler. What would the archdeacon say if… Read more »
Paul OG
15 hours ago
The point I made when common tenure was introduced rested on conditions of employment. The nervousness I saw in the Diocese was around pastoral reorganisation and whether as an employee the diocese could change a major condition of work without you refusing or them making you redundant. The HR advisor looked blank and the Archdeacon said “let’s not get bogged down in detail.” As a full employee this would shift the relationships significantly.
It’s long since time we did away with the idea of tainted hands, and accepted our differences of opinion in love without the ridiculous idea of flying bishops. It’s God who blesses people according to God’s will, regardless of who is asking.
“These painful reports serve as a stark reminder that victims and survivors are asking for – and deserve – more than words of lament. They call us to action.” This is followed by a totally complacent description of the existing safeguarding structure. Isn’t it patently obvious that if the “professional” safeguarding bureaucracy was really professional then the Church of England wouldn’t be in this mess? I don’t want “action” Archbishop, I don’t need or want a pay off I just need proper pastoral care in other words I just need some Christian love from just one of the priests in… Read more »
As a retired with PTO who received the ABofY letter:
” It may also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to increase accountability (including that of bishops) and possibly ask the question as to whether clergy should become employees.”
“It may also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to increase accountability”
That sounds really good for clergy wellbeing. Without AB Stephen being more specific about what he means this sounds like another episcopal power grab.
Who are the bishops going to be employed by? Employment implies the direction of your work by your employer, who then compensates your lack of freedom to spend your time as you choose, by giving you remuneration. So who will fulfill this role for the bishops?
King Charles ?
Bishops, like parish clergy, become the employees of their diocese. Diocesan synod would then hold its diocesan to account, in the same manner as a non-executive board of directors in respect of its chief executive officer.
Presumably if the diocese were the employer, then it would be the Diocesan Board of Finance that would be the actual employer, as it is of diocesan office staff. Ultimately decisions would, in company law, lie with the directors of the DBF, whoever they might be. In many dioceses (but not I think all) the directors of the DBF are the members of the Bishop’s Council which is elected by (and is the standing committee of) the diocesan synod. At the moment bishops are paid directly by the Church Commissioners rather than by their diocese, so another possibility would be… Read more »
I agree. It seems very unfair that senior clergy have more job security by virtue of their office-holder status than diocesan or cathedral lay staff who are governed by much less secure contracts of employment.
Whilst understanding the reasons why Justin Welby had to resign. I find it a bit odd that his standing down has not really been marked. i wasnt expecting a grand farewell as thats not appropriate but for the Archbishop of York to mention ihim only once in his letter just seems a bit rude. I get that the Welby Family. just want to slip away. But they have contributed a lot in the past decade I hope that at some point there can be a reconciliation because that was a theme of their ministry I say the family because ministry… Read more »
Reconciliation with whom? The survivors of church abuse who have fared so badly during Welby’s tenure? Perhaps, after some time out and some healing, Welby might be able to genuinely listen empathetically to survivors and victims and offer some kind of meaningful apology and restitution. I can’t see reconciliation happening in any other way – but I don’t hold out much hope for it.
The lack of any acknowledgement of what he has achieved – and the significant personal cost to Justin and Caroline – is I think deeply sad and a product of the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. I hope Christian history will not judge us too harshly. Much of what they have achieved will be well below the radar; pastoral conversations with all sorts of people in the public eye, visits to places which were worried they had even forgotten and pastoral letters to individuals and, of course, as with all of us, we shall never know this side… Read more »
Stand alone services for same sex couples are already approved by Synod. No further consideration is either necessary or required. What is necessary is for the approval to be implemented and soon. Or is this yet another attempt by the bishops to row back on Synod’s decision and postpone the day when they have to act? I was interested to hear on the radio the other day a commentator say that when the bishops get to gather they fight like rats in a sack. Is this why they can’t make any decisions and why the church is in such an… Read more »
That’s not quite how liturgical authorization works, I think. Authorised services (which are alternative to services in the BCP) must be authorized by all three Houses of the General Synod, and the final form of the texts must have been introduced to the Synod by the House of Bishops. As for commended services, the final text is determined by the House of Bishops and is commended by them. An earlier vote in the Synod is a request to the House of Bishops to proceed, but it is the prerogative of that House to determine what shall be introduced and when.
Simon you are right on process – the suite of resources called the Prayers of Love and Faith have been commended by the House of Bishops for use, that is clergy may use them if they wish. They have not been authorised. Richard is also correct that standalone services incorporating the PLF material are possible for clergy to use now, and does not require further permission from the House of Bishops. Essentially the commendation by the HoB confirmed their view that the PLF material is not contrary to or indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of… Read more »
Lots of things to comment on… I want to pick up “and possibly ask the question as to whether clergy should become employees” I remember a number of years ago thinking the change from ‘Freehold’ ‘Common-tenure’ was doing that… then realising it didn’t was still a type of office-holding. I wonder if anyone would like to explain/defend the value in being office-holders rather than employees? For the individual and the Church? Certainly a number of the high-profile criticism recently (I’m referring to vicars who couldn’t be fired even though “everyone knew”) may have been fixed if they had been employees.… Read more »
Would the Oxford movement, or the Evangelical revival within the C of E have been possible without the independence of thought and action enabled by Freehold office holding? There’s enough grey conformist managerialism within the C of E already. My subversive take is that greater localism and organisational looseness will be more fertile for renewal and revival, than an ever burgeoning culture of control and compliance. But I guess some TA voices would rather call for better managers, rather than fewer, or less empowered of the same.
It was the Bishop of Blackburn who recently raised the question of clergy being employed. I have supported this personally not because I want more managerial structure but because I want greater accountability and support, nether of which is well served under Common Tenure. Alongside being a priest I have also worked for the BBC and for a national third sector organisation. The most striking contrasts in both those contexts was having genuine accountability and receiving genuine support, both of which have been either lacking or poorly delivered in my nearly 40 years of stopendiary ministry.
Fair enough, but how is it going to be resourced, and what are we going to cut to provide the funds for ‘greater accountability and support’, or what should we stop doing in order to focus on it?
I, too, have worked for organisations outside the Church, and for public bodies whilst also a priest. I think you’re absolutely right, but your experience (and mine) should not be assumed to be indicative of any improvement being guaranteed by a move from office holding to employee status for clergy. I greatly doubt the accountability of senior clergy, particularly Bishops, will be improved. Accountability to whom? How willing will such a person be to actually hold them to account? I also doubt better support will result. Many companies offer extremely poor ongoing training and pay no attention at all to… Read more »
I am not sure it’s an argument for keeping it, but it raises difficult questions about self-supporting/unpaid/non-stipendiary ordained ministry. How will it be possible to have unpaid employees, especially if in long-term open-ended roles (e.g. self-supporting associate minister/vicar)? If it’s not possible to make it work, legally, then what will happen to the self-supporting clergy of the Church of England? Will it/they be abolished? What impact would that have on parishes and chaplaincies? The CofE has come to rely quite significantly on self-supporting ordained ministry, even if I had noticed a recent shift to promote lay ministry over self-supporting ordained… Read more »
I don’t see ordination as a barrier to volunteering. Various heritage railways have volunteer train drivers which I would see as an analogue.
What is the status of Special Constables or reservists in the armed forces? Are they employees? Not an exact comparison with NSM or retired clergy with PTO, I know.
Not sure with special Constable. Reservists definitely are employees, and are paid when on reservist business according to their reservist rank I know people who stay in the reserves primarily for the boost to income.
Although, having said that, they come under the heading of ‘crown servants’ which does – or used to – exempt them from all sorts of legislation….
I find this letter from Archbishop Stephen profoundly disappointing. Platitude after platitude, all well meaning, but without grasping at all the fact that the CofE is in dire straits. He seems to be suggesting that if we just tinker with a few things then all will be well. No hint that a total reform of governance is needed for one thing. No suggestion that the AC must go. No acknowledgment of the disaster that the Strategic Development Fund and the whole vision and strategy stuff has unleashed. And then he lobs in a suggestion that clergy should become employees. Fine.… Read more »
I would summarise this as:
“I am not resigning”
Presumably, were clergy to become employees, the church’s current exemptions under equality legislation would have to be re-negotiated? That might be challenging.
Not sure about that. I think you can employ someone to do Christian work in a church e.g. as a Youth Worker and apply exemptions. I’m not convinced that employing clergy will improve the church, but I think you could still insist that only Christians apply.
As I understand it – other churches have their leaders as employees not office holders. Older-others have office-holders.
So that shouldn’t be a barrier.
Not necessarily. Those exemptions were tested in the case of an applicant lay worker in Reaney v Hereford DBF (2007) which the claimant lost.
That’s not entirely accurate…
http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/herefordtribunaljudgment.html
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/2903-2/
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2007/27-july/comment/why-this-constitutes-illegal-discrimination
Thanks for the correction! Mr Reaney won his discrimination case because he was able to convince the tribunal that he would in future conform to Issues. By contrast, Canon Pemberton, an NHS employee in a same-sex marriage, lost his case because of the religious exemption. His bishop removed his permission to officiate so he could no longer function as a hospital chaplain. A change of employment status for parish clergy wouldn’t remove the exemption; it would require reform of equality legislation.
The Archbishop, in his letter which I personally found helpful, makes the suggestion that clergy need a more formal employment structure. The idea is not a new one. In The Times today, Professor Linda Woodhead observes what a big change this would be and notes ‘if clergy become employees they are then subject to the same codes of discipline and conduct as the rest of us. This would certainly solve some of our current problems around dealing with clergy sexual misconduct.’ Precisely. What is the problem? In the same Times article Fr Marcus Walker, like others here, can only see… Read more »
Independence is two edged. It can enable fertile creativity and prophetic boldness. It can veil laziness and worse. Compliance cultures can arguably make us safer, and even more efficient in some ways. But they can tend towards blandness and intellectual incuriosity. The comparison between the teachers who educated me in the 1970s-80s and those in schools today is stark. But of course schools are much safer places so we have gained more than we have lost. Though … if the Bishop of Newcastle were a subordinate employee to the ABY as a line manager, would things have played out in… Read more »
David, I think the issue is one of trust rather than a desire for independence. Given the, to be generous, fallible and ofttimes incompetent exercise of current episcopal powers it’s difficult to welcome the idea of giving bishops even more power, to wreak more damage on the church. More powers in matters of safeguarding, sexual misconduct etc. of course, who could argue against that? But it won’t stop there will it? And will ‘sexual misconduct’ be defined by secular law or some notion of biblical ethics, thus giving conservatives free rein to hound LGBT people? Morale is at a nadir… Read more »
But wouldn’t the same changes in employment structure also be applied to bishops. They would become employees also. So it might be possible, perhaps for the first time, to properly hold bishops to account.
I note that the army recently had no problems court-martialling and sacking a major general for sexual misconduct. Seniority need not be a bar to accountability if the governance structure are right.
Absolutely.
If a bishop had an extra-marital affair, or was revealed to be a fornicator, or behaved in some other sexually inappropriate way, they could be made subject to a CDM complaint, could they not (like any member of the clergy?). What would employment status do to change this?
I would argue against more powers in matters of safeguarding for this reason. It is very hard to impose safety from above. We need a bottom up church not more of top down managerialism. Last Sunday I was privileged to attend online a Confirmation and Baptism service at Newport Cathedral..Each young person read a statement saying why they wanted to be confirmed. They were all very nervous of course but to me it was exceeding important because it was a formal recognition of the voice of each young person. If you have a voice, if you are valued and respected,… Read more »
Beautifully put, and as the recent Civitas report on parishes points out: there is on average one functionary for every three clergy employed by the CofE, making inquisition-like levels of supervision and control possible if we grant them even more power. The most administratively-heavy charities have a ratio of 1/13 to 1/20, by comparison.
https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/restoring-the-value-of-parishes/
well worth a read
More than one thing can be true at once. Yes, one well-aired issue is the difficulties of removing misbehaving clergy, and employment status would help that issue. But another well-aired issue is the trend to managerialism, and employment status would make that much worse. Presumably we can acknowledge the one without denying the other.
John, thank you for saying this so succinctly. From another angle, it’s true that AB Cottrell is clever and articulate, kind and generous; he’s a talented writer and steeped in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. It’s also true that his managerial history in Chelmsford looks woeful: the diocese was struggling when he arrived and on its knees when he left. Great as a pastor and teacher (which really is what a bishop is for is it not?); less successful, to say the least, in management. I hasten to add that I think managerialism is not the solution to the Church of England… Read more »
David I think you raise very fair questions but I do want to respond further. Firstly, I haven’t read Linda Woodhead’s piece but why does she single out sexual misconduct, and what does she mean by it? Would clergy in same sex partnerships become more vulnerable if they were employees? Would single clergy staying over with their boyfriends or girlfriends be subject to ‘discipline’? Because I suspect they all would. And what about clergy who gossip? Clergy who lie? Clergy who discriminate against women? I would be surprised if Linda is fixated on sex but I know the CofE is… Read more »
I’d aver that a changeover to Employment status won’t solve more problems than it creates, and may prove a significant piece of time- and energy- consuming displacement activity. If a vicar is to be an employee rather than an office holder, she’ll need meaningful supervision/direction from a line-manager who truly knows their context and community. The Bishop? The Archdeacon? Pull the other one. The plausible candidate is the Area/Rural Dean. But they would need significant releasing from parochial duties to find the time to do this new job properly. Where’s the money to be found to enable this? And what… Read more »
Many professional jobs entail a great deal of freedom in terms of role and day-to-day organisation, especially in this era of working remotely. So nothing needs to change in the relationship between a vicar and his or her superiors except contractuially, by means of an upgrade of common tenure terms of service into contract of employments . Employee status would give parish clergy enhanced employment rights and the ability to claim constructive unfair dismissal for breach of contract. By the same token, in the two widely-reported cases in Blackburn and Chelmsford, it would have been possible to terminate the contracts… Read more »
I’m not at all sure about the plausibility of Area Deans for this supervisory role. In my experience in one diocese, it is a very minor ‘honorary’ role with little or no specific training and few responsibilities save for chairing the deanery synod and helping with cover for illness and leave. It seems to be passed around among the relevant incumbents for limited periods. Locally the appointment of assistant archdeacons, not always as an adjunct to an incumbency, appears to be gaining ground, further increasing the top-heavy managerial structure and depleting the resources available for front-line parochial jobs.
I’ve written something on the ‘doubled edged’ value of employee status in response to Nicholas Henshall above. I won’t repeat it here, but like some others I have some serious doubts about how guaranteed improvements would be, even if they appear to be so in a ‘paper exercise’ analysis.
I find it curious that with regard to CofE clergy becoming employees nobody has pointed out the advantages to clergy in their relations with those above them. It would certainly make union membership more obviously attractive, and I may say that in the charitable sector (a reasonable comparison) CEOs really hate it when you say that you need to bring in your union rep before continuing the disciplinary discussion they have started. Actually in my experience they would far prefer people to be naïve enough not to be union members (“after all, we are a charity”), as unions will pursue… Read more »
Not arguing with your assertions which seem reasonable. But if this debate is conducted in terms of ‘what’s most advantageous for… clergy, bishops, laity… etc. etc.’ then haven’t we given up being the family of God, body of Christ, holy nation etc. etc. Turning us into a set of competing interest groups isn’t going to nurture the Kingdom, may I opine. But probably too late.
I think it’s fair to say employee status brings advantages and disadvantages. Employee status could be an advantage when things go wrong- an end to church lawyers arguing ‘office holders can’t be unfairly dismissed’ which is a favourite of the C of E at tribunals. On the other hand lots of clergy are already in Unite’s faith branch and do utilise their support in the current situation. Employment status may bring problems if it encourages more managerialism which, as it’s the ABY’s suggestion that has us all discussing it, can’t be discounted as an outcome. And bear in mind this… Read more »
A few bad priests are being used to justify another power grab by the control freaks in purple. I suspect — although I’m no expert — that York couldn’t have got rid of Tudor even if he had been an employee. And ++Stephen still made him Rural Dean despite knowing what he did about him. Why? (History buffs will note that York vs Tudor rarely ends well for either party or the church.) We all know that hard cases make bad laws. Still I reckon it will happen. Possibly at new appointments or as a condition of PTO for stipendiary… Read more »
Laity may need to have a concern about their Vicar being employed rather than holding office. I suspect it will be easier for the powers that be to make her redundant when the money to employ her runs out (which will happen all the more quickly once all the necessary middle management jobs have been framed and filled).
The post of Vicar of A+B will be easier to extinguish, and a new job of Rector of A, C and D created, which (intentionally?) may or may not be attractive to the Vicar to apply for.
One possible benefit of clergy becoming employees is that we could lose the annual panic about doing a tax return. I’ve long thought it a nonsense now that we no longer receive additional income from fees or glebe, and it would be a relief to have all that simply dealt with through the PAYE system.
The tax return takes me less than half an hour and that’s with additional pages (property, investments). I keep a hard (photo) copy and use it as the basis for the following year.
No one has mentioned the Archbishop’s hints at pay rises for the clergy. Given that stipends and clerical pensions have failed to keep pace with inflation in recent years, I would imagine the clergy will be more interested in cash in their pockets than whether they’re office holders or employees. Common tenure is an employment contract in all but name with all of the responsibilities but very few of the benefits of employment. As employees women clergy would have a field day at the Employment Tribunal given the dioceses’ haphazard approach to maternity rights and the like. Compulsory retirement ages… Read more »
Employment for clergy might put a stop to the supposedly ‘half-time’ posts that require the post-holder to work Sundays and three other days each week.
Fr Dexter, imagine applying for one of these posts and asking what other three days you were expected to work so that you could find employment for the rest of the week? House for duty posts are an even bigger deception. I saw an advertisement for a HfD post; four parishes, two church schools and three open churchyards. The prospective candidates were informed that they would be a visible presence in all the parishes, be a governor in both schools and lead collective worship. The ‘reward’ – a Rectory with an oil fired boiler. What would the archdeacon say if… Read more »
The point I made when common tenure was introduced rested on conditions of employment. The nervousness I saw in the Diocese was around pastoral reorganisation and whether as an employee the diocese could change a major condition of work without you refusing or them making you redundant. The HR advisor looked blank and the Archdeacon said “let’s not get bogged down in detail.” As a full employee this would shift the relationships significantly.