| Information | Where to find us |  |
| Media Centre | Home |
| home / information / clergy appointments adviser / towards good practice in the appointment of clergy |
Tell us what you think about our website
Good Practice in Appointments
TOWARDS GOOD PRACTICE
IN THE APPOINTMENT OF CLERGY
TO PAROCHIAL POSTS
IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE PRINCIPLES
PARAMETERS
1) For these Guidelines
2) For the Church.
3) For the Patrons
4) For the Parishes
5) For the Clergy
6) For Bishops and Dioceses
7) For the work of the Holy Spirit.
GOOD PRACTICE OUGHT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
A Statement of Needs and the Job Profile
Advertising
Information Packs
Informal Visiting
Short-Listing
Formal Visiting
References
The Interview
A Separate Interview with the Bishop
Disabilities and Discrimination
After the Interview
1) Single Patronage
2) Where there is Shared Patronage and/or a Multi-Parish Benefice.
3) Where Added Responsibilities are Envisaged
4) Team Posts and Fixed-Term Licences
5) Team Curates.
6) Local Ecumenical Partnerships
7) Aftercare
Annex 2 - The Clergy Appointments Adviser
Background
Development
Key features
The Future
Discussion Topics for Six-Month Reviews
Some quite basic changes in the ways that Incumbents are appointed have been ushered in by the Patronage (Benefices) Measure of 1986. This legislation enhanced the role of the Parochial Church Council in the process and gave the elected parish representatives (appointed by the PCC) the power of veto on the patron’s choice of a particular candidate. This played a part in ensuring that slowly and surely the whole business of clergy appointments became more transparent.
At the same time, local government, education and several other national institutions were experiencing major changes in the way staff were being appointed. Transparency began to replace trust as a mechanism for ensuring that fair play was seen to be at work in the way people obtained employment.
Until about twenty-five years ago, there were very few teams of clergy and only a few suspensions (Priest-in-Charge posts) because of parish reorganisation. Clergy were often directed by bishops into new parishes. Patrons (if they were different from bishops) would have many networks by which they learnt of a clergyman’s availability and could present them to the bishop for approval. It all spoke of a fairly opaque system that was open to question, and even abuse, and the criticism that was most often heard was, ‘It is not what you know but who you know that gets you a living in the Church of England.’ This process started in the last year of theological training when the ‘title parish’ was decided on and the ordinand had only a minor role to play in the choice. Now, the way in which clergy are trained and the emphases on ‘styles’ of leadership have changed as well. No longer do we expect clergy to work in isolation or parishes to have a ‘singular’ view of Christian ministry. A collaborative climate should be the norm and this is now reflected in the way appointments are made.
As always, long established ways of operating are very slow to change and there is still a lot to be said for the discernment of others, especially bishops and patrons, in the development of an individual priest’s ministry. The call of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit can often lead to some very strange decisions that have no seeming logic at the time but are later revealed as absolutely the right direction to take.
However, with the enormous variety of practice amongst patrons, the differences between clergy in church tradition, the ordination of women to the priesthood, the desire of parishes to be more involved, and a host of other factors that are too many to list here, there is now a real need to aspire to a standard of practice in appointments that is seen to be fair and just.
This Guide will soon need revision because there are many other changes envisaged for clergy security, deployment and discipline in the near future. However, it is needed now and it is never too soon to introduce better appointing practice to the benefit of all participants in the process. The focus of this document is upon the appointment of incumbents and priests-in-charge, but the elements that make up such a process can be applied to team appointments and even house–for-duty posts where short-listing, interviewing and references are used to arrive at the preferred candidate.
This Guide is predicated on the following principles.
That an appointment is to the glory of God and not to the partisan interests of either priest, patron or people.
That no individual or group is the dominant ‘player’ to the detriment of other participants.
That if transparency is not total, then trust is worked for and recognised by all parties.
That ‘ministry’ is seen to be the duty of all Christian people and not just the province of those who are ordained.
That competence and ability in ‘acceptance’ is not a cause for denigration and despair in ‘rejection.’
That pastoral care is present at every stage for all participants.
That ‘fair play’ and ‘putting oneself in the position of the other’ is always uppermost.
That quiet prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit may be at the heart of all our ‘activity’.
These are not intended as a detailed map of the Patronage Measure of 1986. There are many publications by Patrons and Dioceses that will do a much better job. (A short bibliography is included.)
The Guidelines point to good practice in the detail of appointments for all those involved in the process. They seek to establish a culture of respect within the Church for everyone to follow. Our treatment of people should flow from our understanding of God; that we are made in His likeness and our behaviour should reflect the example given to us in the life and the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. The guidelines cannot be binding because, under present arrangements, there are few procedures laid down by law and this is an attempt to bring in good practice by ‘weight of consent.’
The means by which a member of the clergy is appointed to a post owes much to history. Patronage is often perceived as belonging to another age and another time when it was felt that local or party interests could only be properly served with trusted clerical representatives in post. Aspects of doctrine or theology, the needs of a particular village or community, or the wider ‘battles’ of a broad Church could all be included. Decisions about appointments are sometimes made on very different criteria but it is still clear that the Church would be much the poorer if different traditions and needs were not ‘represented.’
The Church has moved closer to models of employment in the secular sphere but there are still areas where good practice can be developed. For good or ill, clergy are seen (more than the laity) as the public face of the church. Bad appointments make for bad advertising!
In the ‘cold light of day’ patronage implies special influence and support, as described above. Some have concerns about ‘patronage’ when criteria are used for selection that are not included in any job description or person specification. While it is recognised that the process of appointment cannot be totally transparent, patrons – individuals, societies, colleges and bishops – should do all that they can to win the trust of the other people involved in the decision. These Guidelines seek to ensure that appointments are made in a way that can be understood by everyone and be seen to be fair.
There is a very positive role that parish representatives can play in the task of selecting a new incumbent. Their election by the PCC to represent the interests of the church(es) and the parish(es) in the living can mean a far wider brief than their own personal interests. It can take in all sorts of factors, both within the congregations and in the community, into consideration. The power of veto under the 1986 measure encourages much more activity than simply the right to say “no.”
The rapid changes in decision-making and deployment of clergy have redistributed security and insecurity in equal measure over the past 25 years. Many clergy are currently used to participating in (e.g. as school governors, or as employers or employees in pre-ordination secular employment), systems of recruitment and appointment that directly contradict the perceived systems of the Church of England.
A statement of good practice could still provide a benchmark for acceptable appointment procedures for clergy, even though many are not technically employees. Openness about the process of appointment, from the moment a vacancy occurs, no matter what the ‘style’ of patronage, could be seen by clergy to be fair if the information is made available to all the parties involved.
There are concerns that extend beyond the immediate appointment of a minister to a living where a larger picture should be included in the frame of reference. Opportunities for such an inclusion exist within the Section 12 meeting ( the local needs having been specified in the Section 11 meeting) but there can still be suspicions that all of the longer term proposals have not been aired sufficiently. A spirit of openness and inclusion will reap rewards at a later date if attempts are made to present realistic, if painful, scenarios.
7) For the work of the Holy Spirit
All parishes have a history of disagreement at some time in their lives. It would not be wise to deny these differences of opinion and/or theological or ecclesiological outlook. Factions and groupings may have developed out of deeply held beliefs about the role of the local church, its mission and its ministry and disagreements can be most strong amongst those who share a similar church tradition.
Appointments in a religious organisation that has diverse theological interests are prone to produce the candidate least likely to offend all but the most extreme views. It is in the interests of those who are responsible for making, or agreeing to, the appointment to look at their own diversities before attending to the short-comings or strengths of applicants. This may be achieved through quiet self-examination and communal prayer.
There is a way of ‘being’ a parish priest as well as ‘doing’ the job and this is as much to do with spirituality as it is to do with skills and job profiles. Helping to discern the will of God for a person or a place is never easy. God works through all sorts of systems and we need to be open to His promptings, perhaps in unexpected ways.
GOOD PRACTICE OUGHT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
A STATEMENT OF NEEDS AND THE JOB PROFILE
The PCC draws up a statement of conditions, needs and attractions of the living and the bishop (or his representative) produces a statement of the needs of the diocese. If the patron is not the bishop, these elements are combined with the concerns of the patron, who will have consulted both parties. But who has really been influential in drawing-up this document? Is it an agreed position or are there other ‘minority’ opinions that have not been included? There may be some worries that a vociferous minority has had an undue influence on the process of drawing up a description. A patron, a diocese and a parish can have very different perceptions of what is needed. Areas of disagreement should be made explicit. It is almost certain that the person appointed will discover these differences soon after she or he has started work and so disguising the tensions and challenges of a post serves no-one, especially the eventual occupant!
Are the needs of the church(es) in conflict with a wider picture which might be represented as the role of the person or the building(s) in the (non-Christian) community/parish(es)? This is a normal sounding taken when looking at the appointment of a bishop to a diocese. Are there plans for housing developments, industrial estates or major roads that could have significant implications for the job description?
Has the job profile been so tightly drawn that it leaves little room for manoeuvre or development? Will the occupant of the post continually be constrained by the perceptions and strictures of a time-limited piece of paper?
Has a structure of support been thought through, bearing in mind the considerations already mentioned?
The PCC decides whether to ask the patron to advertise the position and some patrons may not wish to do so. It is good practice to give reasons for this option to the parish(es) concerned. There is still a ‘mixed economy’ in the Church of England but advertising is becoming more popular. If this is the path a patron wishes to take, does the advertisement actually dissuade some people from applying because of the requirement to go through a competitive interview? There are many good reasons why some clergy do not wish to open themselves to such a process. For example, it may be difficult to evaluate good and attentive pastoral care under competitive conditions. On the other hand, advertising ensures that the post is offered widely, and this gives equal opportunities for all who wish to apply. The reasons for wishing to advertise a post, and where it should be advertised, should be examined in considerable detail and discussions as to who pays for any advertising need to be crystal clear.
Is the information conveyed to the reader accurate and useful or is it just a ‘wish list?’ Is it clear who is actually responsible for the placement of this advertisement and to whom inquiry should be made?
Has the cost of the advertisement been agreed and have other channels (such as the Vacancy List at the Clergy Appointments Adviser’s Office – see Annex 2) been investigated?
Is a closing date for applications given? As far as possible, is a date for short-listing and interview included? (This is indicative of the consideration that will be given to the post-holder’s diary once he or she is working). A starting date may also be in the minds of those who wish to appoint. If this is the case, it has to be recognised that some people who may otherwise be eminently suitable may be excluded (because of existing family commitments, for example). The desired starting date could be stated from the outset i.e. in the advertisement, and certainly in the job description.
Enhanced disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau is now a legal requirement for anyone whose work brings them into contact with children. Is this procedure made clear?
As far as possible, the advertisement should reflect a desire to operate in an environment of equal opportunity for all those qualified to apply for the post. If a woman will not be considered for short-listing or appointment, it is strongly advised that Resolutions A and/or B should be in place before the advertisement is drawn up. This should be stated clearly in the wording. The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations came into force on the 1st October, 2005 which refines the earlier exemption of the 1993 Measure, and still ensures the degree of freedom all churches and faiths need. However, patrons and parishes can no longer rely on ‘an informal position’ where, for example, it is felt that this is not the right time to appoint a female candidate. A woman who feels discriminated against in an appointment to a parish that has not passed Resolutions A and/or B could claim unfair treatment, which might result in legal proceedings. [See Annex 1 – Bibliography/Websites]
Any other requirements (such as an ability to drive) must also be stated clearly and the patron and the parish should be prepared to be challenged openly in this regard. Extreme care ought to be taken to ensure that such requirements are essential to the post and do not discriminate unfairly against those who meet all of the other job specifications.
The case for an ability to drive, and (maybe) car ownership, can be made in more rural multiple livings for example. Likewise, the combination of wheelchair use and a potential incumbency with several medieval churches can present the interviewing panel with some difficult problems. However, the selection of a candidate on just mobility grounds is highly dubious as there will be many other criteria that apply in the job description and person specification. Disabled clergy are vulnerable, even though their vocation has been affirmed by the Church, and they must take their rightful place in the full spectrum of ordained ministry. Nevertheless, there needs to be a sense of an appropriate balance. Expectations of particular accommodations to a disability can ignore the fact that ‘stewardship’ involves a succession of incumbents over years that have different mobilities, abilities and disabilities. This applies to adaptations to the parsonage as well as any church buildings.
Is there a website that potential applicants can visit to gather more general information about the post or the parish(es)? Such information is often helpful to those who may be attracted to the advertisement but wish to know more before they commit themselves ‘to paper.’
In short, does the advertisement give accurate, clear and unambiguous information about the present and future intentions of those who wish to appoint to this post?
In addition to the statement of needs and the job profile, an information pack can be assembled by the PCC (or designated persons) and this could contain detailed information about:
A short history of the ministry in that place with an accurate indication of its strengths and weaknesses and the work that God has already done through the stewardship of those who have gone before. It is sometimes not helpful to reproduce names here and allowances should always be made for changes in social patterns and perceptions that mean the ‘glories’ of the past can never be revisited in quite the same way! A cool and calculated analysis here will often go a long way to fostering good practice in mission and ministry for the future.
Details of the licensed ministers in the parish and the structure of the ministry team where one exists.
The setting of the parish(es) with as much information as possible about housing, industry, work and leisure patterns, demography , development plans and any other relevant material that a minister should know about his/her ‘cure.’
All buildings that will be the responsibility (shared with others, or in sole charge) of the post holder. This should include an accurate synopsis of the last quinquennial report, plus an outline of any proposals for the repair or development of these buildings and the exact financial arrangements that have been approved. (The complete report could be made available to short-listed candidates.)
A copy of the last audited accounts for the living that clearly show the financial health (or otherwise) of the parish(es). Any separate accounts or trusts that have a direct bearing on an assessment of the responsibilities of the post should also be mentioned here.
Schools (Church and otherwise), Colleges and all places of education, with an outline of the Church’s involvement up to this point in time; and maybe an indication of potential for links that have so far been underused or undervalued.
The Deanery, the Archdeaconery and the Diocese and the ‘vision’ that may be shared with the wider Church in terms of the collaborative role that all these levels have in the care and cure of souls in this place.
A statement from the outgoing post holder if this it is judged that this will be helpful to the candidates.
The parsonage building and grounds, its size and state of repair plus any proposed work that may be considered. The nearness of schools, public transport and community based facilities will be very helpful to a potential family; but care must also be given to those who are single or whose families may be grown up. As hard as it may be for those trying to attract clergy to a post, less than accurate information about accommodation will always come back to haunt a parish or a diocesan surveyor and openness is the best policy. Many dioceses have Parsonage Handbooks that set out the rights and responsibilities relating to the house on the part of the diocese and the occupant. (A copy of the quinquennial report on the parsonage house could be sent to short-listed applicants.)
If the vacancy is for a job that has not changed, or is quite close in description to a present post, it is quite reasonable for potential applicants to ‘have sight’ of the parish(es) and to seek out general information about the setting of the post in its context. However, such investigations should be with the absolute minimum of fuss and all due courtesies should be observed. It is not really advisable for the candidate to attend Sunday worship at such an early stage in the process as he/she will only have a certain number of Sundays free from their present parish commitments. Were he or she to do so, the visit should happen as unobtrusively as possible and leading questions ought not be asked of ordinary members of the congregation! Conversely, patrons or parishioners who visit the parishes of applicants should observe a similar discretion. ‘Distance’ is a particularly relevant question here and, for example, potential positions in the Diocese of Europe would need some careful planning in terms of visits by candidates and availability of those responsible for the appointment.
After application, and certainly upon learning of an interview, all efforts should be made by the receiving parish, the other members of staff and lay teams to welcome enquiries from the candidates. Candidates for interview should be given access to the Rural Dean and (if possible) the Archdeacon, bearing in mind the demands of diaries and realising that such enquiry may be by e-mail or (more comfortably) on the phone.
This is not a time for intensive questioning by either ‘side’ but space must be given to the concerns of spouses and children and other family members (who will live in the accommodation provided) or careful concern shown to candidates who may have worries about the safety of the parish and the house.
There is an enormous variation as far as short-listing is concerned and the variety of patronage and practice prevents explicit guidance being given. Societies, colleges, bishops and independent patrons all do different things but, in some cases, prior to short-listing, there may be a conversation between Bishops about the reliability and professionalism of candidates. The ideal short-list would comprise of between three and five candidates but sometimes this is not possible. Careful thought should be given to a situation where only two candidates will be interviewed because this may restrict the options available to the panel and the over-riding principle could be, “this one is better/more suited than the other,” rather than, “this is definitely the right person for the job!” Obviously, some patrons and parishes are happy to only interview one person at a time and, although this is often a slower procedure, the lack of haste may result in a more thoughtful and prayerful decision. Then, in these cases, short-listing and a candidate ‘balance’ do not apply.
There must be some sort of rationale to the method by which candidates for short-listing are arrived at i.e. Is this a job for the patron alone or the bishop and/or archdeacon or should the parish representatives be involved as well? Present practices do not allow for transparency in the matter of criteria. Objective reasons for not short-listing a candidate must be given so as to avoid any potential discrimination charges. It is, in the present age, difficult to defend the premise that those elected to represent ‘the people’ of the living are not as well equipped to judge the matter as those who hold ultimate responsibility. Good practice would naturally come down in favour of short-listing by those who will interview the candidates (or at least a representative cross-section).
In the case of established teams, there may be a gender imbalance that patrons and parish representatives would like to rectify by either appointing only a man or only a woman, to try and correct this balance. This dilemma may also have a historical component in respect of previous single sex appointments. This is a particularly difficult problem and it has no easy answer. The over-riding criteria should be the ability of a candidate to meet the job description and the person profile no matter what the gender. It is a matter of fact that difficult dynamics in teams are more to do with the personalities and leadership styles involved than the simple conclusion of the gender mix.
There may be some applicants who will be disappointed upon learning they have been excluded from the short-list. Specific reasons as to why an applicant has not been included should be noted (and fed back to the candidate if requested). Extreme care is neccesary here (as with feed-back after an unsuccessful interview) because the job profile may fit the applicant exactly and discrimination could be the obvious charge.
Once a place on the short-list has been decided, access to the inside of the parsonage house and grounds is an obvious requirement, with some indication of any work envisaged and options, if there are particular needs of that candidate or his/her family. Again, realism and honesty is the best approach here. Expectations of all sorts of modifications to the building on the part of the applicant or a refusal to make any changes on the part of the parish or diocese are not the way to proceed.
Members of ‘the team’ (both ordained and lay) should be involved in discussions with all the candidates. Even if they are not part of the interviewing panel, no licensed minister or member of the paid staff or (as far as possible) the voluntary representatives should be left out. Great care needs to be exercised here because the candidate can feel that the ‘visit’ is a series of aggressive interviews or the members of the wider team can feel that they are peripheral to any decision about the preferred candidate. It may be helpful for anyone involved in meeting prospective candidates to be given guidelines about the basis upon which these are to be carried out in order to avoid challenges about bullying or discrimination. For example, general questions about a person’s present post may be asked, but not their ideas for this potential setting. Questions of a very personal nature are to be avoided, especially those concerning a candidate’s single or married status.
Comments about the candidates can be fed back to the elected representatives of the living from members of the wider team but candidates must feel free not to answer intrusive questions from people who are not part of the interviewing process. Information about the sorts of people the candidate is likely to meet and in what context should be included when details of the post are first sent to short-listed candidates. Meetings and meals with PCC members, plus any presentations, come under this heading. Direct ‘competition’ between candidates (e.g. making presentations or undertaking Biblical exegesis in front of the other candidates) is not to be encouraged.
Accommodation in the parish over-night may be quite difficult for some candidates. They, and their spouses, may feel very uncomfortable and ‘on show’ at a time when they may wish to reflect or let their hair down! Best practice ensures a stay in a comfortable local hotel or guest-house that is not run by one of the Church Wardens!
REFERENCES
References are often a mixed blessing and some care needs to be exercised in their evaluation and assessment of a candidate. Remember that they may be the biased opinion of a life-long friend or the frustrations of a cantankerous cleric. References sometimes say much more about the writer than the candidate!
Secular practice often puts much more emphasis on a C.V. and the performance during an interview. The Church still likes to know how a person ‘ticks’ and the way they minister in the field. People skills and pastoral awarenesses are a particular requirement of parochial posts and abilities or limitations may be seen more clearly by those who provide references rather than the candidates’ own estimations of their competences.
References really should not be quoted back to candidates unless there is specific mention of the fact that the whole piece has been shown to the candidate by the writer. Alternatively, the writer may have been told at the outset that the reference will be shown to the candidate, but the members of the panel must know that this is actually the case and not assume it to be true. The Data Protection Act of 1998 allows (amongst other things) a person to find out what information is held about them which is why the Clergy Appointments Advisers Office always encourages writers of references to share what is written with the candidate concerned. In an ideal world, anything in a reference should never come as a surprise to a candidate. It is the coalescing of conversations and comments over several years of a relationship. It is not an opportunity to write things that would never be said to the candidates face!
[See Annex 1 – Bibliography/Websites]
Some panels might wish to see references before interviewing the candidates and others may wish to use them before coming to their final decision. The particular nature of ministry in the Church often calls for an increased use of references and some bishops and patrons do not allow parish representatives to see them. This is a somewhat dubious practice because the inference is that ordinary parishioners are not mature enough to keep confidential information to themselves or else they cannot use it as wisely as the patron. Under normal circumstances, parish representatives should be brought into the confidence of all those responsible for the actual appointment.
No direct guidance can be given as to the exact composition of a panel because, again, the expectations of different patrons, team members, parish representatives and senior diocesan staff will vary enormously. However, some panelists may be quite nervous, or lacking in experience or knowledge of what is expected of them. Coaching could be offered some time before the interview date by the Archdeacon or, for example, one of the Diocesan Education Staff. A regular session of training for all parishes engaged in the process of appointing clergy might be considered useful. In the same way, there are a number of clergy who have little experience of being interviewed by a panel for a post. Training and coaching should be offered by the diocese, or an ‘outside’ coach could be appointed to facilitate this.
The composition of the panel should have been indicated to the candidates before the interview, especially the number of interviewers and their roles. Thought should be given as to how far the make-up of the panel reflects the gender and ethnic mix of both the congregation and the people to be interviewed.
It is essential that a written record of the proceedings is kept so that candidates can receive accurate feed-back. This could be carried out by a suitably qualified parishioner who is not involved in any part of the proceedings, or a diocesan official.
The panel should be able to meet before the time of interview and draw up a written schedule of questions with an accurate apportionment of time allotted to each subject. Members of the group must be aware that they are asking questions on behalf of people they are representing and not just fighting for their own particular concerns. (This point is particularly applicable to multi-parish benefices where traditions vary and expectations of the new post holder could be very different.) Variations of emphases and traditions are better admitted openly and an admitted lack of resolution or a common mind might be seen as ‘maturity’ and ‘a willingness to engage in change and growth!’ The interview is supposed to be a discovery of God’s will for the ‘living’ and the priest, not just a competition between factions.
Refreshments and a quiet place to think and pray might be considered for those who are waiting to be interviewed.
The interview room should be well lit and the layout should not be intimidating to the candidate. Thought should be given to the position of table(s) and the relative heights of chairs for example. An interview conducted ‘in the round’ with everyone sitting on similar chairs is, by far, the most preferable setting for an interview. It gives the feeling that everyone is concerned with the right appointment under God and not an examination of one person. A panel of more than twelve people will be prohibitive to good conversation and ‘performance’ rather than ‘enquiry’ will be the over-riding activity (even with an interview of over one hour in length). It is suggested that an ideal number for a panel is ten members or less and the length of any one interview is no more than one-and-a-half hours long. If necessary, the panel could be split into two groups so that a more intimate atmosphere is generated and the candidate(s) could spend an hour with each group.
The same questions should be addressed to each candidate. Subsequent developments from these questions may differ but there is no justification for asking different initial questions of different candidates. Questions that are ‘open-ended’ are likely to allow interviewees to give better responses than closed questions. Examples of open questions are ‘Tell us how you make decisions about…’and ‘You say …about yourself. Can you give us an example?’
If a presentation is required then facilities should be offered to all the candidates to allow them equal opportunity and time. Bishops or Archdeacons have an important role in seeing that boundaries and timing are adhered to rigidly, and in making sure that intrusive personal questions are withdrawn.
Spouses and family members should not be interviewed. This is not to deny the valuable ministry that spouses and family members offer, but it is the vocation of the priest that has been tested and confirmed by the Church.
An act of prayer may precede or conclude an interview (with the candidate present) but its emphasis should be on the desire to determine God’s will though the action of His Holy Spirit and not an agenda or a summary of the proceedings.
*[The large variation in expectation, emphases, ecclesiology and practice that exists in the Church of England is prohibitive to the drawing up of one model example of good practice. Visits, interviews, meetings, presentations, worship, meals and accommodation all vary so enormously with the justifiably different needs of each appointment that one model can never meet the requirements of all the participants.
For this reason an appendix that covers all eventualities, under one heading, cannot be drawn up. It is hoped that some, if not all of the above criteria, will be seen to be present in whatever structure is envisaged for the interviewing of candidates for a particular post.]
A SEPARATE INTERVIEW WITH THE BISHOP
This may be required if the Bishop is not able to be present at the interview and it is a problem area for any consideration of good practice because this meeting is not open to the same strictures of the more ‘public’ interview. A bishop may wish to ask particular questions of a candidate that pertain to his/her personal life or ‘performance’ in the last post. In line with the advice given to panel members earlier, the Bishop certainly has legal responsibilities to fulfil but he is invited to ask only about those aspects of a person’s life that may have a significant influence on his or her ability to be a priest in the particular setting under consideration.
It is also a fact that different questions have been asked by different bishops according to their own theological or doctrinal positions. This is why some clergy prefer to serve in one diocese rather than another. Also, the Church has always been prone to enjoying ‘a bit of gossip’ and, more often than not this is benign. Occasionally the gossip takes on a more sinister edge and bishops need to make sure that they have not been influenced by unsubstantiated opinion.
It is very important that any bishop understands that questions of a personal nature, or information gleaned from another source, are open to the charge of discrimination or defamation of character. A refusal to appoint on these grounds must be very carefully thought through.
DISABILITIES AND DISCRIMINATION
As stated earlier in this guide, all parties must be made aware that if certain disabilities are a bar to an appointment they are in command of all the particulars and the situation has been fully discussed before interviews are conducted. Clergy who are single, older, or from any minority group need to be assured that they are being dealt with in exactly the same way as other candidates. The Church can certainly aspire to make its practice mirror as closely as possible the criteria that pertain in the secular world.
It should also be remembered that new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations come into force in October, 2006 which will apply to office holders (clergy) as well as employees. Clergy appointments which include a reference to age as a selection criteria will be unlawful unless they can be objectively justified. Also care needs to be taken that criteria, other than age, are set which could discriminate indirectly. For example, it would be difficult for a person of a certain age to fulfil them. Justification for expecting an applicant to work for a certain number of years in a post must take account of the fact that clergy can work a further five years beyond the normal retirement age of sixty-five. Also, requiring a certain length of experience will need to be justified if this is to be included in the job specification. Young people can feel just as discriminated against as those of older years!
[See Annex 1 - Bibliography/Websites]
Both the candidate and the parish must recognise that there is a process of discernment going on during and after the interview. Nevertheless, good practice means that when a candidate is present at interview, s/he should have a good idea that this is the post to which they feel called, and that they have the skills and gifts necessary to carry it out. Unless there is material, previously unknown to the candidate that emerges during the course of the interview, s/he should be prepared to accept the post at that time if it is offered. A delay of days or even weeks is unfair to the members of the panel, their diaries and the parish(es).
Likewise, if possible, the patron should be able to tell the preferred candidate of the decision of the panel within a few hours of the interview. It is good practice to communicate with all the candidates as soon as possible (preferably by telephone or even word of mouth if they have stayed behind to hear ‘the result’) and certainly to offer a debriefing opportunity at some future date to all those who were unsuccessful. The final decision may depend on a subsequent interview with a bishop but the recommendation of the panel should be communicated to the preferred candidate as soon as it is known.
If a minister secures two interviews for separate posts and there is a gap of several days (or even weeks) between them, a decision on the second cannot be played off against an offer on the first. This is for the very obvious reason that involves the efforts of the panel in making their time and diaries available for the interview. Upon receiving an offer, unless there is more information revealed at the time of the interview that the candidate has been unaware of, she/he should be willing to give an answer as soon as possible. Likewise, a parish or living cannot say to a candidate, who has just been interviewed, ‘We have someone else to interview in a few days/weeks and we will let you know of our decision’. It is inconsiderate to hold other people in a state of limbo. It produces a high level of distress and anger, and these are not the best emotions to come to the fore at the time of an appointment.
Debriefing should be based on information gleaned during the interview, which is why the written record is so important. Simply telling someone they came ‘a close second’ is not adequate to the task. Candidates (and Christians) must have something they can work on either to know their limitations or their areas for improvement! Rejection on information that was already available prior to the interview is unacceptable.
A written confirmation of the panel’s decision should always follow on from the initial telephone call. It could also contain some helpful comments, if the patron feels this to be appropriate. The pastoral care that happens after this process is the real test of a caring community because the ‘unsuccessful’ interviewees may be upset and disappointed. Much prayer and soul searching (on the part of their friends and families as well) could have gone into their decision to apply for this post and a ‘rejection’ has implications that may be beyond any secular appointment. It is important to remember that this may potentially be a place they (and their family) have chosen to live as well as work.
There are a multitude of differing practices adopted by patrons in their search for the right candidate(s) to present to the parish(es) and to the Bishop. Some seem to use the quiet conversation method with a few likely candidates while others will go in for full- scale interviews and even doctrinal, theological or social inquisitions. Certain patrons have an aversion to advertising a post while others regard it as vital to any hope of appointing the right sort of priest from the regional, or even, the national, pool.
A guide that attempts to pull together the varied approaches to appointments in the Church of England is bound to fail but patrons are asked to place themselves in the position they have asked a candidate to adopt. In other words, ‘Is the process I am now putting this candidate through, or the questions I am asking them, something I would recognise as fair and just in the present more open climate?’ This guide interrogates the motivation for partisan questions which may be important to a patron but which may have a different interpretation in the wider Church. Examples include the existence of a previous marriage that has been dissolved many years ago, responsibility for a child (or children) where the candidate is not married, the sexuality (not the practice) of a candidate, the profession of a spouse, the size of his/her family and many, many more!
2. WHERE THERE IS SHARED PATRONAGE AND/OR A MULTI-PARISH BENEFICE
Candidates should always be made aware of the history of a ‘living’ and how the present arrangements were arrived at. Sometimes these arrangements are of a fairly temporary nature and further changes are envisaged. This may have been discussed at a deanery level or it still may be the subject of speculation at higher levels in the diocese. It is not good practice to keep candidates ‘in the dark’ over such matters especially if the appointed person will then have to accommodate to a changing picture later on in their ministry in that place.
Where patrons are not part of the usual diocesan ‘conversations’ it is also good practice to discuss future plans at a separate time from the impending appointment. This will then be seen as cooperation and not coercion, from either side. All conversations between patrons and diocesan officers or bishops should have the best interests of parish and parson as a top priority and trust is of the essence.
3. WHERE ADDED RESPONSIBILITIES ARE ENVISAGED
Some posts are understood to include extra responsibilities in the local community or in the diocese. For example, a priest may be asked to spend regular time as a chaplain to a local hospital or hospice; or she or he may have a teaching role in a diocesan training scheme. These added duties must be carefully costed, in terms of travel and time spent in preparation, as well as the fulfilling of such duties. As with more explicit ‘dual-role’ appointments, good communication channels must be in place from the outset, by which each ‘agency’ is informed about the complete picture and the post holder is not required to be a go-between. In all such appointments, provision should be made (at the time of advertising) for a suitably positioned senior staff member to have responsibility for the post holder in all aspects of their duties. It goes without saying that responsibilities that might be ‘bolted on’ soon after the appointment do not come within the remit of good practice!
4. TEAM POSTS AND FIXED-TERM LICENCES[1]
There must be a very clear understanding of the processes that operate within a team setting and the exact relationships existing between other members of the team. Independence and interdependence between different churches will vary enormously, as will the relationships between ‘personnel’. The exact nature of the team, with lines of responsibility and accountability, must be clear to any candidates that apply for any post and, as with any fixed- term positions, the ‘exit strategy’ must also be clear. Ideally, appraisal and review procedures should be available in writing and agreed upon before any final acceptance of a post.
Although curates serving their title posts do not come under this particular appointments brief, there are many ways in which confusion can reign in a team where the lines of accountability and responsibility are not drawn up carefully. Any curate appointed to a team must be given a clear statement about areas of responsibility as far as work and training are concerned and, although the curate may have duties which cover the whole team, he or she will need to know clearly in writing who has responsibility for direction or supervision.
6. LOCAL ECUMENICAL PARTNERSHIPS
Again, these sorts of posts can vary enormously and they often seem to flourish or flounder on personalities, as much as the well-thought-out structures that are designed to support them. Appointment(s) to an ecumenical team or a single post should not be considered until there is clarity between each denomination and all parties agree to a working formula. The constitution of the particular partnership may offer guidance about appointments. A controlling council will have to work in unfamiliar ways (to that of each denomination) and differences of opinion cannot be resolved through the occupants of the post(s). Likewise, a shared building can become more like a battlefield, and great care must be exercised if appointments are made by the individual denominations to a common worship centre.
In some dioceses there is a review after six months to discuss with the person appointed how the job is going. This practice is recommended and a list of discussion topics is given in Annex 3.
This guide in no way begins to deal with every eventuality because, in such a body as The Church of England, there are a thousand different permutations which will allow the reader to say, ‘Well that does not apply to our/my situation so we/I will continue with the practice that has been tried and tested.’ The problem with this attitude is that the world has moved on and circumstances that meant (some) good appointments were made in the past are now considered to be detrimental to the parish(es) or to the candidates. Powerful patronage, alongside the newer development of congregational muscle, will only result in a sense of injustice amongst many candidates.
Likewise, clergy can no longer adopt the passive roles of the past and must actively engage in the process of discernment, even if their talents do not lie in large degrees of self-promotion. Engagement with the process means some thought and care for those who have the burden of appointment. This means attention to paperwork, timekeeping and correspondence, as well as the larger canvas of whether ‘this is of God!’
The core principle in any development of good appointing practice is the idea of justice and fair play. The overriding concern should be to know that, as far as is humanly possible, each party in the process has looked at themselves clearly and honestly before examining the faults and shortcomings of the other. Good appointing practice should always seek to place oneself on the receiving end of any encounter whether candidate, patron, bishop or panel member. This is also the mark of good Christian work and witness.
Of particular interest are the papers used in the dioceses of Derby, Oxford, Southwark, Worcester and York.
So the Vicar’s Leaving? By Mike Alexander and Jeremy Martineau (ACORA publishing, Arthur Rank Centre, Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire CV8 2LZ, 1998) £3.50
Situation Vacant: A Guide to Appointments Practices in the Church of England by David Parrott and David Field (Grove Books, 1999) £2.50.
Useful Websites
The latest Sex Discrimination Legislation.
http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/legislation/index.htm
Subject Access Rights and Third Party Information.
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
Age and Equality Legislation.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/overallageria.pdf
JOHN LEE, OCTOBER, 2005.
(ARCHBISHOPS’ ADVISER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF CLERGY)
(With particular thanks to Margaret Jeffery of the Ministry Division, sometime Secretary to the DRACS Committee and of invaluable help to the writer!)
ANNEX 2
The Clergy Appointments Adviser
The office was originally set up by Peter Bostock (a former CMS missionary) who felt that clergy should have some sort of clearing house for opportunities in parochial ministry outside their diocese. This was particularly important for those ordained here, but serving abroad, who did not have access to the usual routes of appointments back in this country.
Through the stewardship of Prebendary Arthur Royall and Canon Ian Hardaker, the Office has developed into an information centre for vacancies and clergy that most major patrons use today. There is much more mobility and sense of choice (rather than a bishop's direction) in the minds of clergy. Some people see this as a forward step and others still look for a sense of discernment in those who are set above them. There is a certain clash of expectations at the time of an appointment and this will continue for the foreseeable future. The CAA Office tries to steer a kindly path between these different approaches to appointments and there is the hope that God's guidance is always close at hand.
THE VACANCY LIST: A list of all those parishes which are vacant and have been brought to the attention of the office by a patron, a bishop or a team leader. These will not necessarily be the same posts that are advertised in the church press. The list usually contains a lot of detail about the post and is available electronically and in hard copy. We estimate it is looked at by at least 800 people every month.
THE GENERAL CIRCULATION: A compilation of brief CVs of all stipendiary clergy who are looking for a move within, or into, the Church of England. Clergy are included in this list for a year and then they are withdrawn. It is hoped that many other avenues (such as the society patronages or the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical Secretary) will also be explored at the same time. We 'process' about 300 clergy a year.
CME/POT TRAINING DAYS: The Adviser is always available to give clergy advice on appointments systems, writing CVs, interviewing skills etc and he travels around the country providing one day seminars.
BISHOP'S STAFF MEETINGS: These are important contact points for the diocese to make its feelings known, and for the Adviser to give guidance if it is requested. The world of clergy appointments is idiosyncratic and unpredictable. This is a chance for the senior staff to let the centre know what their worries are and the centre to say what the national picture looks like.
INTERVIEWS: All candidates for the General Circulation are interviewed by the Adviser (allowances are always made for those coming in from abroad) because he needs to know something about them so that, on occasion, recommendations can be made. However, there are quite a number of other interviews that have no other purpose than to allow someone to take stock of their life and ministry. During last year the Adviser talked to nearly 400 clergy about their future, (several had more than one appointment).
As the climate of openness develops in the secular world, so will the expectations of a greater number within the Church of England. The changes we see operating in society cannot help but be felt in ministry and how that ministry is deployed. The General Circulation is still seen by some as being the last resort of the hopeless and the 'difficult to place.' This is a diminishing point of view and representative of a time when clergy had little or no say in where they were directed. Whether by divine guidance or some very astute thinking on the part of our predecessors, this office can only be increasingly useful to those who are seeking new work. It remains to be seen as to whether the somewhat idiosyncratic system of appointments can make full use of the department's potential!
Discussion Topics for Six-Month Reviews
(Diocese of Southwell)
How are things going – what has gone well?
What has not gone so well?
In what way is the reality not what you expected from the Paris/ Ministry profile?
How are relationships with clergy and lay ministers, Churchwardens, the PCC, congregation and parishioners etc.?
How are your training needs being met?
In which areas of ministry would you appreciate support from the diocesan advisory staff?
Is the vicarage comfortable –what work is outstanding?
How well has the move and settling in been for your spouse/family?
Are you having regular time off - what is your day off, are holidays as planned?
[1] If the recommendations of the review of clergy terms of service are accepted, the use of fixed-term licences will diminish significantly.
feedback | contact us | links | site map | copyright & disclaimer | privacy | site helpSupported by Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
Site developed by ILRT