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.