Clergy - what should we pay for? [2]

Continuing with this thread there is a question that some have asked me as to whether we should be paying for them at all. This, and the discussion of stipends and common purse, need to be looked at and so we will do the 'should we be paying for clergy' question here and come back to the other issues later.

Where I am are various styles of 'unpaid' clergy - these are called Non Stipendiary Ministers (NSM) or Self Supporting Ministers (SSM), Ordained local Ministers and House for Duty* (HfD). Now the word 'unpaid' (not one I use) is rather frowned upon by many and yet still used by some. Self Supporting has given way to Non Stipendiary because (they tell me). "We don't like 'non' people!" Actually I think the distinction is moot and perhaps just a little pouty - but that's me, innit? If you are not in receipt of a stipend (yes, we will discuss stipends soon) then you are 'non-stipendiary'! How difficult is this (it's up there with the 'history' foolishness!).

Nomenclature issues aside - the reality is that many are looking to those who fit into this category of ministry where cost to the diocese is reduced to solve the cashflow problems that have come through a variety of reasons to haunt the CofE. In case you're wondering what they might be, three of the reasons I've been given thus far are:
1. Poor or imprudent financial management of the assets,
2. Diminishing per capita giving, and
3. Diminishing numbers of communicant or committed members.

One model, which many refer to as the 'Minster' model (but they are wrong), looks to a stipendiary minister in the central (AKA 'the big') church and 'assistant clergy (unpaid) in the other churches within the team. The problem is that we need to keep the lights on in churches and provide some form of leadership and because we demand an ordained leadership (all to do with epiclesis** and presbyteros*** - two important issues in my book - but that's for another day).

As someone who is a committed proponent of all-member ministry I am a firm supporter of releasing church members into leadership positions (lay and ordained) and think this should be the force behind our actions. Sadly though, even though many ask me what's my problem as the end result is the same, there are some who seek to find people to do the job as a means of saving cash rather than equipping, enabling and releasing them because it's what we (meaning me and others like me) are called to do! It has the feel of one of Dostoevsky's comedies.

The question though (at last) is should we be paying for our clergy? If we didn't pay them then we would have the issues of renumeration, housing, support services, clergy reviews and the like.

If we restricted payment to those who work in the revenue generating areas, this would this cut the expenditure - a view  held when I came to Lichfield diocese for there was a proposal at the Diocesan Synod to save money by cutting 'sector ministry' roles' These are the people who do non-parochial roles, working for the diocese, and so are a cost centre rather than a means of income. Regardless of how much they bring in, parochial clergy do bring something in from the members and so making sure we don't muzzle the ox that tread the grain we shoot those who don't! A very shortsighted view indeed.

Talking about the issue in 1943, the House of Bishops said of the stipend:

" Has been rightly regarded not as pay in the sense in which that word is understood in the world of industry today, not as reward for services rendered…

but rather as a maintenance allowance to enable the priest to live without undue financial worry, 

to do his work effectively in the sphere to which he is called and, if married, 

to maintain his wife and bring up his family in accordance with a standard which might be described as neither of poverty or riches…"

In 2001, the Clergy Stipends Review Group's report "generosity and sacrifice" (GS1408) gave us this:

"The stipend is part of the remuneration package which is paid for the exercise of office. It reflects the level of responsibility held. This package acknowledges the dual demands in Scripture of generosity and sacrifice on both those who receive the stipend and those who raise the necessary funds."

So another answer to the question, "What should we pay for?" brings forth the answer that it is there to provide clergy with the ability to give their whole time to the work of the Church without distraction from other secular employment.

Having had the discussion many years back where those who were stipendiary were accused by an NSM of, "Taking money from the Church whist they (being NSM) gave to the Church for free out of their love for it!" Now this was an invitation to a punch-up and as the discussion continued one of those present asked what time they gave to the Church, the response being some Sunday services (but not all or even every Sunday) and some time during the week. They gave 'what they wanted to give'! The shot that set fire to the world around us that day was, "Not only that but you expect me to work all day and then ask me to go to evening meetings too!" 

Goodness me, the number of clergy who pointed out that they were working all day and going to the same meetings as them - was not a nice experience. The bottom line is that some have secular jobs and give what they can when they can (Thank You) and some work and give what they choose to give (Thank You again) when they =choose to give it. Regardless of the realities, the situation is that people are bringing stuff in and doing stuff and for that we are truly grateful. The stipend removes the external daily toil from the workload and permits a focussed and consistent application of the dogcollar's time and energies and this brings a different, but equally valid, 'Thank You'.

So there is a justification for paying for ministers if it means that they are fully therefore committed to the work of the Church - but this needs to be done sensibly and sensitively for indeed it is not pay, but it needs to reflect the responsibility and workloads, pressures and challenges (mental, emotional, spiritual and fiscal) and deal with them in a mature fashion (anyone considered the secondary costs of living in some areas perhaps?).

More grist to the mill - more stuff to reflect upon and get us all thinking (looking forward to some intelligent dialogue from this and the other stuff that is to come).

Sorry is it meanders a little  - head full of cotton wool and lungs full of yeuk!)

Happy Monday

*HfD is just a little different as we will see later.
**epiclesis - invoking the Holy Spirit = blessing, consecrating and the like (see part 1)
***presbyteros = being a Priest is what we are and not what we do - it's about changes in being (ontology)

Just what is being a Cleric about?

There are so many interesting conversations to be had regarding what a 'Vicar' really is and does at the moment.

We have some who consider themselves in places merely to 'keep the lights on' and this raises some good stuff regarding 'mission vs maintenance' and whether 'lights on' is enough (or valid).

There is the issue of Self Supporting Ministers (the ministers previously known as 'Non Stipendiary'*) and what they offer and how they are regarded by others and, perhaps more importantly, by self!

We have those who are 'locally ordained' and how they, their churches and the establishment see them.

As the numbers of stipendiary clergy diminish as the old adage of 'cutting one's coat according to our cloth' is applies; and looking increasingly towards living out the 'can't pay - can't have' mantra, the reality is that the locally-ordained are viewed (by many) as those who will replace the departing stipendiaries at ground level. Something that leads us to also consider the return of some form of Minister model

In broaching these discussions, people have pointed to the demise of the old 'one parson - one parish' and the fact that unless some (especially 'rural' church?) 'grow their own' then they are doomed to closure. But then again if we put clergy into a building without a strategy for growth are we being effective for the Kingdom or merely putting off the dreadful day of reckoning  and leaving it to be 'someone else's' problem?

Another part of the problem is the fact that many of the locally-ordained are perhaps a little older than the twenty-four yr old priest who made the press today and they move with retirement and get ill and, as one person put it, simply 'die' (don't we all?) and where full-time posts are replaced with others the church's find themselves bereft and without a shepherd.

And as for 'no cost' options - there is the supervision of the locally ordained (three years) and then the Training Incumbent roles and then being a 'line manager' after that (for ministry and management are indeed two different elements!). Sounds like quite a bit of emotional, spiritual, physical, practical and temporal cost to me!

The Local Ordination process is much akin to eating spaghetti, for once embarked upon, the churches need to keep sucking to ensure that there is more in the chain and to prevent the day when the can (spaghetti only comes in cans doesn't it?) yields its last!

All of the above appear to regard the minister as the person who 'staffs' the church building rather than shepherds the sheep and facilitates, trains, releases and supports. As a friend put it (accurate as ever) the clergyperson is the 'religious service provider'.

So here we are - much to discuss and reflect upon (I hope) for everyone, for Church is about all-member, collegial, Kingdom ministry - not the few.

Pax