From the MSF Clergy and Church Workers' Newsletter, September 1998
In a discussion about the House of Lords, a would-be reformer said, correctly, that it is a mediaeval institution. In his mind its mediaevalness was what was wrong with it, a sufficient warrant for change or abolition. Meanwhile in the House of Commons, the Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, in the face of determined anti-mediaevalism, has been trying to preserve Parliamentary traditions (including the tradition that Parliament, and not elsewhere, is where debating is done before decisions are made). The monarchy itself has been similarly attacked by one of the Queen's own chaplains, Eric James. Our country is characterized like no other in Europe by its countless ancient institutions, knit intricately into every level of national life, many of them under pressure to change; and the largest by far is the Church of England.
Reformers are particularly incensed by abuses perpetrated by 'unaccountable' clergy. The Mappa Mundi affair at Hereford, the internecine war in the Close at Lincoln, the tyranny at Westminster: none of these should happen in a modern well-managed organization. Such disasters are actually good news for reformers, because they justify change. Cathedral deans and chapters will soon lose their independence and share their powers with the bishop and worthy laymen! Every cloud has a silver lining.
De-mediaevalizing goes on apace. Look at the 'clerical' columns in Jezebel's Trumpet. How many incumbents are wanted, as distinct from 'team' clergy, 'community priests' &c? Mediaeval incumbencies, even in their modern truncated form, are now hard to come by. Most clergy would like to have a benefice, just as most would also like a house in which they can open Crockford's without grazing the knuckles of both hands on the opposite walls of their study, but these are not the things we are supposed to care about. What we care about is increasingly suggested to us by the caring corporation - with its watchful line managers, quadrennial bonding sessions and wall-to-wall counselling - that the Church of England is turning itself into, and of which it behoves us to be grateful and docile members.
What is it that our Roundheads - the bishops (except when prelatical status is threatened) and those whom they call their 'staff', and management-oriented synodsmen - so dislike? It is the notion of an office that is held by right, so that the holder cannot be got out by oppressive or hostile manoeuvring, even by his superiors. Out must go the 'patron', with his right to appoint. This right is actually his property, but never mind that; it can be nullified quite legally - for instance by the formation of a 'team ministry' - or by means of doubtful legality, i.e. the suspension of presentation under the Pastoral Measure, but in disregard of its accompanying Code of Practice. A recent blatant example in an advertisment in the Trumpet reads, 'The Diocese is considering Vicarage redevelopment, hence possible suspension' - my italics. If only a stout-hearted patron with lots of money would undertake some vigorous litigation! That is certainly what would have happened in the Middle Ages, when people knew exactly what their rights were and would contend for them fiercely. They knew that 'patronage', like life itself, is 'changed, not taken away'. If patronage is removed from some one, it is so that some one else may exercise it.
The Church of England after years of depredation by management, still retains some of its mediaeval distribution of powers and responsibilities. Control freaks like the 'House of Bishops' think this an untidy state of affairs. An incumbent, when required to attend a course on child abuse, or whatever is nearest to the diocesan Bishop's heart at the moment, can decline to attend even when falsely told that it is 'not voluntary'. On receiving a booking form for the quadrennial bonding session, he can heave it merrily into his giant waste paper basket, along with books of draw tickets, letters beginning 'Dear Decision Taker' and other unsolicited mail. There shall no evil happen unto him. He is an incumbent.
The distressing behaviour of the Deans and Chapters of Lincoln and Westminster, should remind us of our ancient liberties. We should respond as if to football hooliganism: 'We deplore the appalling behaviour of a tiny number of dignitaries, who are spoiling the institution for the vast majority of ordinary clergy, who desire nothing better than to get on quietly with what they were ordained to do: prayer, study and pastoral work.'
Possessing the liberty to get on with your work, in the manner you see fit, used to be one of the hallmarks of professional life; but no longer. Perhaps, in an age when almost every one belongs to a profession, this elitist principle no longer applies; but the secular professions have partly made good their lost securities by combining together, something the clergy have never been much good at.
Parish clergy must be clear about the intention of our managers: they mean to extinguish our old liberties and put nothing in their place. Meeting hardly any resistance from our complaisant representatives in the 'synod', they have been steadily accumulating an arsenal of weapons to enable them to do it. Our stipend and our parsonage - our living - will become a salary and married quarters. As our money and property are increasingly put at the disposal of the diocese, the diocese will naturally wish to use up less of it on employees (but we are never called employees) with a tiresome tendency to independent thought, whose work could be done more enthusiastically, and for no earthly reward by the lay ministry teams now being promoted with near-miraculous simultaneity, all over the country.
Can we restore the balance? Only by combination, as our secular counterparts have discovered. The bishops all agree that trade union membership is a good thing for almost everybody. Almost, but not quite, because it is not appropriate for their own rank and file. What a waste of trouble and expense it would turn out to be if, when they have succeeded in reducing this riff-raff of curmudgeonly individualists to a biddable, on-message, constantly appraised and re-trained workforce, we should then band together, discover our combined strength, restore the old balance of power and responsibility! The way ahead is clear:
'MSF' - Mediaevalize for a Secure Future!
Return to Top Return to Index of Documents Jeremy Hummerstone