18
crossllincs
New clergy rules ensure good practice Tim Barker
Archdeacon of Lincoln
Under new rules, clergy hold their offices with greater understanding about their rights and responsibilities.
T
he last day of January was significant – not just because John Saxbee retired as Bishop of Lincoln, but because many Church of England clergy awoke to a new way of holding their parish posts, whether as priests-in-charge or assistant clergy. Responding to concerns expressed by the previous Government about the ‘employment rights’ and conditions of service of ministers of religion and some other groups, the Church of England spent a number of years preparing for new conditions of service for all clergy, whether or not they receive a stipend. The Ecclesiastical
Offices (Terms of Service) Measure became law in 2009, and we have spent the last eighteen months preparing for the law to become ‘live’ on 31 January 2011. The new terms of service are described simply as ‘Common Tenure’. This well describes the object of this legislation – which is to put all the clergy onto a common basis which provides equal security for everyone. Under the new legislation existing team vicars, priests-in-charge, assistant curates, non-stipendiary ministers and ordained local ministers and a few other groups of clergy are automatically being transferred onto Common Tenure. They will hold their offices with much enhanced security of tenure and much greater clarity about their rights and responsibilities. Clergy on Common Tenure will serve normally until the retiring age, but subject to removal on grounds of discipline, redundancy or after a new form of ‘capability procedure’ that would be invoked where a post holder is failing to reach minimum standards. Clergy concerned will be receiving letters from the Bishops of Grantham and Grimsby before the end of February, explaining the
new arrangements in greater detail. Common Tenure confers rights such as proper entitlement to time off, including maternity, paternity and other forms of leave; access to a grievance procedure; and a right of appeal to an employment tribunal in certain circumstances. It also carries responsibilities to participate in ministerial development review (MDR), continuing ministerial education (CME), to report absence through sickness and gives access to a capability procedure. Freehold clergy have the choice as to whether they transfer from freehold to Common Tenure, but all new appointments (whether as vicars or rectors or as priests-incharge) will be on Common Tenure. This will apply equally to the new Bishop of Lincoln, who will hold his office on Common Tenure. As the legislation was being prepared, much time was given to the question of whether clergy should become employees. It was concluded that this was not appropriate. There are several complicated legal issues concerning whether the relationship of a clergyperson to her or his superior can be expressed in employer/employee terms.
But the main reason it was felt that this was inappropriate was the employer’s entitlement − and also opportunity − to control the work of an employee (if necessary on a day-to-day basis). This, it was felt, would be alien to the relationship between a bishop and his clergy. And so, largely for this reason, the idea of making clergy employees was rejected, and it was recommended that the officeholder status of clergy should be retained through the medium of Common Tenure. Arising from that was the recommendation that the Church must put in place proper mechanisms designed to ensure good practice and to foster deeper relationships of trust and partnership, including the provision of professional human resources advice and appropriate training for bishops and archdeacons. Ministerial development review will be vital in the working out of this process, as will be the preparation of a clear ‘role description’ for all clergy. In future, when their parish priest leaves, parishes will work with the archdeacon to prepare a role description, alongside the parish profile and the statements of their needs and hopes for their new priest. !
I believe in God Mark Hocknull
Head of Ministry Training, Head of the Lincoln School of Theology and Chancellor of Lincoln
Mark continues his exploration of the Apostle’s Creed: Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and was buried.
I
n the reflection on creation, I promised that we would return to the theme of suffering again later in the series. Now as we reach the clause of the Apostles’ Creed which deals with the death of Jesus it is time for that return. Mention of the name of Pontius Pilate is a reminder that the events to which the creed bear witness took place at a particular time in history and in the full public glare.
They are by any meaning historical events: they are events that took place in history and are as open as any historical event to investigation. The remarkable thing about this clause is that the creed is here testifying to the fact that the Son of God, the incarnate God, is the one who suffers and dies on the cross. As Charles Wesley, in the eighteenth century, wrote, ‘Tis mystery all, the immortal dies’. In the passion of Jesus, we see God entering into, and embracing fully, the condition of suffering and death. The creed then does not speak of a remote distant God, but of a God prepared to enter into the world, to embrace the conditions of life on earth and to pay the high cost of creation in full. The Cross is the vindication of God against the accusation of unjust suffering in the world, and it is the redemption of the world in the face of sin and evil. In choosing freely to suffer and to die, Jesus, the Son of God, identifies himself with all who suffer as a consequence of evil and human sin. The deepest dimen-
sion of the cross is reached with Jesus’ abandonment by the Father in the moment of death. According to Mark’s gospel Jesus’ final words are a cry of desperation and abandonment: ‘My God my God why have you forsaken me?’ (Mk 15: 34). Suffering and death have been pursued by God to their very end. The full affect of evil and human sin, separation from God, is tasted and experienced by God himself. In the moment of death, God the Son dies alone. The Son experiences the loss of the Father and death, and in the moment of death, God the Father experiences the death of the Son. The Father, in other words, experiences grief. Because of the cross, God achieves something that would otherwise be utterly impossible. The experience of separation and suffering is taken up into the very heart of God. The cross is an act of divine solidarity with the suffering and sinful world. On the cross is not Jesus the human being, but Jesus the incarnate Son of God. Jesus most emphatically does not set us an example of meekly suffering, of pas-
sively accepting suffering and sin. This is God taking a defiant stand against the worst that evil and sin can do. Taking a defiant stand, and as we shall see in a later column, overcoming. This way of interpreting the cross, as the overcoming of evil, sin and suffering, has a very important consequence for those who accept the divine solidarity with them that Jesus offers. It is no justification of evil and suffering. It is instead an invitation to join with God in the ongoing work of overcoming evil and suffering. If on the cross, God identifies with the sufferings of humanity as a consequence of the fallenness of the world, then those who in turn identify themselves with Christ must also commit themselves to work to overcome injustice and suffering. Evil, sin and suffering are never justified, and are certainly not justified by the cross. The effects of evil, suffering and sin are redeemed by the cross and we are invited to both celebrate this overcoming and seek to extend the boundaries of those who have discovered it. !