Freehold and Common Tenure

At the last meeting of the General Synod, there was a discussion on the clergy freehold.  The current situation is that parish priests, Vicars and Rectors, can generally expect to be given the freehold of their parish.  This means that they cannot be moved without their agreement unless they are found guilty (in a church or civil court) of some great misdemeanour (though they must retire at seventy).  Often, nowadays, livings are “being suspended”, which means that the freehold is not given: rather, priests are made “priest in charge”, which does not offer the same security – usually the appointment is for a fixed term.  Some bishops have been criticised for the extent to which they are suspending livings, since the intention of the legislation was to permit re-organisation of parishes, not the enhancing of Episcopal power.  There are also many clergy who do not work in parishes, who have a contract like any other employee.

There has been some concern that those who are priests in charge and even more those who are employed on a contract do not enjoy any rights, since the Church is not considered an employer in the ordinary sense under the civil law.  Therefore, the idea of Common Tenure has been devised.  This provides a framework of employment that is common to all clergy.  Apparently, it introduces employment rights to priests in charge and other non-parochial clergy; but it also removes the freehold of parish priests.

Clergy will undergo regular appraisals under capability procedures and those who do not measure up to the selected criteria will be vulnerable to being removed from their office.  It will, apparently, make bishops and their agents more able to respond appropriately to complaints about clergy from their congregations.  The house that currently belongs to the office of the incumbent will be transferred to the ownership of the Diocesan Board of Finance. 

Whilst the published ambition is to enhance the rights of the un-beneficed clergy (priests in charge and non parochial clergy) and increase the flexibility of the diocesan workforce; but, in fact, it will also undermine the security of parish priests.  To service this new dispensation, at some considerable cost, the Church of England will establish a personnel department.

It is interesting that the central powers are only prepared to concede justice to un-beneficed clergy (if that is what it is) in tandem with a weakening of incumbents’ security.  Some, including your Vicar, are opposed to this measure for a number of reasons.

The newspapers (possibly advised by Church House spin doctors) trailed the measure as the end of “jobs for life” of the clergy.  When couched in these terms, it seems a perfectly reasonable move – why should priests enjoy a luxury not really available to anyone else?  The answer is that their situation is unique and they are not employees of the bishop, as such.  Whilst indolent and incompetent clergy can have a devastating effect on a parish and present a real problem, there are not that many of them and hard cases, as the wisdom goes, make bad law.

First, we need to reflect that priests, certainly parish priests, are not really employees of the Bishop, but part of the presbyteral (a presbyter is an elder) college, of which the Bishop is the chair.  Early on, the Episcopal office began to emerge with greater and greater executive authority; but we should not lose sight of the fact that his or her authority is not or should not be absolute.  The system of freehold maintains this balance of power between the clergy and the bishop, ensuring that a bishop cannot arbitrarily impose her or his will.

Secondly, it raises the whole question of what are the criteria against which a priest and parish are to be judged.  In the Anglican Church there is no agreement of what exactly a priest is and, therefore, what they should be doing.  The role of the priest varies from parish to parish depending on the gifts of the cleric concerned and the circumstances in which she or he works.  Given this lack of a shared understanding of the nature of priesthood, any framework for the working week will be devised without any theological underpinning and owe more to ephemeral whim and the latest management techniques of the secular world, which, as we shall see, throws up problems all of its own. 

Thirdly, and moving on from the second point, one wonders how effectively a priest’s performance can be assessed by a hierarchy that rarely visits the parish and does not have a balanced view of the situation on the ground.  I heard a civil servant once describing a select committee hearing.  He made the cogent point that whilst the facts of an event could be relayed, it was not possible to recreate the atmosphere of the time that was a significant factor in decisions that had been taken.  Similarly, a lot of a parish’s routines are dictated by the feel of the moment.  The problem is, of course, exacerbated when the appraiser is not overly sympathetic with the style and ethos of the congregation.

Fourthly, the adoption of modern managerial techniques needs to be carefully approached in the parish arena.  They fail to take into account that the Vicar cannot just issue instructions (well, he can, but nobody has to take any notice).  Those with whom the priest works have other responsibilities that are equally important, sometimes more so and are not always available when a job needs to be done.  When someone leaves or has to withdraw from some activity, there is not always anybody with similar skills to take their place and you cannot just advertise for a replacement.  These processes can also be very admin hungry, which creates a whole raft of issues in an organisation with limited administrative facilities and resources.  This is not to say that there are not things that we can learn, but it cannot simply be a matter of buying the book and launching the enterprise.

Fifthly, we come to the matter of complaints made against the clergy.  I recognize that in this parish at least, the Vicar enjoys a degree of forbearance on the part of the other people here; but, to be fair to him, given the demands made on parish priests nowadays there needs to be an appreciation that not everything can be done perfectly and bang on time; and often, failures may result from circumstances beyond his control.  Where there are legitimate grounds for serious complaint, of course, action needs to be taken; but patience in the smaller irritations is the quid pro quo for having people being prepared to take on the job at all.

Of considerable concern is the scope for malicious or vexatious complaints, which are not as rare elsewhere as people in this parish might think.  Employment issues can drag on for months even without satisfactory eventual resolution.  When these are unwarranted, the priest will have no redress: there is no method for bishops or others to discipline or even rein in malevolent laypeople, who can therefore cause mayhem both in a parish and also in the priest (and her or his family’s) life with impunity.

We should not forget that, unlike most secular employment, with the job go the home and other benefits in kind to offset the fairly modest re-imbursement that clergy receive.  This is not an argument for protecting the indolent or incompetent but it adds to the sense of insecurity that hardworking and hard pressed clergy will feel.

In the end, such programmes will achieve the same as increasingly they are in the secular sphere: priests will opt for what is safe, protecting their backs.  The history of the Church’s success is founded on bravery and idiosyncrasy.  A parish such as this recalls that priests who pioneered the tradition we take for granted were sent to prison for their efforts.  Whatever some people might like to tell us, the Church is different from other organisations: the relationship between priest and people is underpinned not by legal prescription but by the bonds of the Body of Christ, which include trust and understanding.  Clearly there are occasions when this breaks down, but we need to wonder whether, in legislating to prevent these instances of human frailty, we might not also find ourselves actually undermining the institution we are trying to protect.

Home page: http://www.stmatthewsnewcastle.org.uk/