From the Revd Carol Wardman
Sir, - The idea that no gift is freely given, with no element
of transaction whatsoever, certainly offers an interesting and
controversial - if slightly depressing - spin on voluntary giving
of any kind, from birthday presents to volunteering. But to link
this notion to the suggestion that self-supporting ministers must
be in it for the status, or the right to excercise power, is
borderline outrageous (Canon Angela Tilby, Comment,
20 June).
SSMs, like any other volunteers you care to think of -
befrienders of the elderly, Girl Guide leaders, Samaritans, Special
Constables, lifeboat crew, even churchwardens - undoubtedly gain
skills, experience, friendship, and enjoyment in return for the
donation of their time and talents. But surely the prime motivation
must be a sense of vocation and service - or else why would anyone
bother to expend the effort?
Where does the idea come from that giving up one's spare time
voluntarily is somehow less committed than being "materially
dependent on the institution"? Does this imply that taking on an
unpaid ministry that demands a rigorous selection process, a
substantial period of training, and then working for nothing, is
less serious, virtuous, or sacrificial than opting for a paid
appointment in the same field?
SSMs who remain in secular work give up evenings, weekends, and
annual leave (on top of the day-job) to accommodate the demands of
ministry. In this demandingly mobile age, giving up several years
to ministerial training can preclude relocating in search of
promotion, or prevent higher levels of training in the secular
career; so the sacrifice isn't just about the obvious. (I know paid
clergy sacrifice things, too; the point is, we shouldn't make
comparisons.)
Some SSMs even feel called to create links between ordained
ministry and an equally strong calling to their secular work. It is
frustrating when valuable expertise from the day-job is disregarded
in the church context; and it is simply wasteful when, in the
tricky business of working out how to appeal to busy people trying
to live out their faith amid the stresses and ambiguities of
commuting, paying the mortgage, facing redundancy, and dealing with
- or being - the boss, the daily lived experience of SSMs is rarely
called upon.
But to suggest that if SSMs want to do more than fill in on
Sundays they are motivated by a desire for "the power of patronage"
and "a sense of entitlement" is as insulting and absurd as saying
that paid clergy are only in it for the money.
After being an SSM for some 17 years, I admit that I am now in a
paid, though non-parish, job with the church - which I couldn't do
without my secular and NSM experience. I don't think I am the first
to remark that we all have gifts and callings for the building up
of the Church and the Kingdom of God. Let's not throw anyone's
gifts back in his or her face.
CAROL WARDMAN
Bishops' Adviser for Church and
Society, Church in Wales
39 Cathedral Road
Cardiff CF11 7EX
From the Revd Dr Teresa Morgan
Sir, - In her recent article on SSMs, Canon Angela Tilby
cites an essay by Professor John Milbank, which, on closer
inspection, in itself admirably answers her concerns.
Professor Milbank's argument is that a gift is not a gift until
it is received and responded to. Whether human or divine - and his
ultimate example is the incarnation - a gift "requires" (as he
powerfully expresses it) a response. "This is the one given
condition of the gift," he concludes, "that we love because God
first loved us" (Modern Theology 11.1 (1995)).
I have met and corresponded with many SSMs who passionately
wished that their gift of ministry could be used more fully by the
Church. None of them, in Canon Tilby's phrase, was trying to "buy
favours". Rather, they were expressing the profound truth, both
anthropological and theological, that their gift could not truly
become a gift until it had been accepted and responded to for what
it was.
The appeal by SSMs that the Church should make better use of the
gifts that, as charismata from God, they seek to give back
to God is nothing to do with promotion, power, patronage, or any of
the other things that worry Canon Tilby. It expresses the longing
to respond to God's gift to the world by giving oneself, and, by
having that gift accepted, to enable others, including the Church,
to give in turn.
TERESA MORGAN
Oriel College
Oxford OX1 4EW
From the Revd Hugh Lee
Sir, - In her column on SSMs, Canon Angela Tilby says that
"nobody has addressed the meaning of the gift that SSMs are
offering to the Church." This question has been extensively
explored in numerous articles, books, and CHRISM conferences ever
since the first SSMs were ordained from the Southwark Ordination
Course more than 50 years ago, and even before that, when some of
the clergy left stipendiary ministry to become worker-priests.
HUGH LEE
Former Moderator of CHRISM;
Assistant Bishop's Officer for Self-Supporting Ministry with
special responsibility for MSEs
64 Observatory Street
Oxford OX2 6EP
From Canon John Edwards
Sir, - The nub of the argument of Canon Angela Tilby's column
about SSMs seems to be that, because they offer their ministry to
the Church without financial recompense, "they have a sense of
entitlement . . . so they are kept in their place, and they know
it."
I have been lucky enough to represent SSMs in part of the
diocese of Oxford for many years. I recognise some of the tension
Canon Tilby describes between SSMs and stipendiaries, but only for
a minority. In this diocese, where SSMs account for a substantial
proportion of all ordained ministers, most SSMs are highly regarded
by the stipendiary colleagues with whom they work, and vice versa.
By and large, these SSMs have rewarding ministries and feel
privileged to exercise their vocation within the Church.
In my view, such issues as there are about SSMs relate much more
to the Church as an organisation than to local working
arrangements. The position was recently described perceptively by a
senior bishop as "institutional blindness". The effect of this
blindness is manifold - from statements that even now see
stipendiary ministry as normative, to new training requirements for
curates introduced without regard for the disproportionate
practical impact on SSMs; and from inflexibility over licensing
arrangements for ministers in secular employment, to lacklustre
central support, encouragement, and promotion of self-supporting
ministry.
Against this background, the high-powered civil servant of Canon
Tilby's column seems to me to be displaying not a sense of
entitlement in search of a reward, but simply frustration that the
Church finds it so hard satisfactorily to channel all the gifts
that she brings with her to ordained ministry. She is not alone in
that. My hope is for a Church imaginative enough to overcome its
inertia and backward-looking prejudices about SSMs, and to
recognise the full potential of the capabilities available from
them.
JOHN EDWARDS
SSM Officer for Berkshire archdeaconry, diocese of Oxford
Green Hedges, 25 St John's Street
Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 7NJ
From the Revd Dr Margaret Wilkinson
Sir, - Canon Angela Tilby is correct in saying that SSMs
would benefit from understanding the gift relationship better, but
that is so for every member of the clergy and the laity alike. This
better understanding would not of itself clear up the confusion
that so often occurs about self-supporting ministry.
For that to happen, there needs to be a recognition that the
call is to the priesthood first. Questions about whether the call
is to stipendiary or self-supporting ministry are secondary, and
may change in either direction as an individual's ministry
develops.
For me, the call has always been to a self-supporting ministry,
but I have many friends and colleagues who have moved from
self-supporting to stipendiary and vice versa.
MARGARET WILKINSON
27 River Grove Park
Beckenham, Kent BR3 1HX